| Revision as of 12:27, 4 November 2009 view sourceDeacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators39,746 edits →Fixing a mistake: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:28, 4 November 2009 view source Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators39,746 editsm →Fixing a mistake: fixNext edit → | ||
| Line 415: | Line 415: | ||
| CoM, you must have noticed that I removed your last post in this matter here with the edit summary "unwelcome". Just in case I need to spell out in more detail what this means. It means that posts from you to my talk page in matters of other users are, and will be, exactly that: unwelcome. You are not among the users I appreciate feedback from in matters of my administrative work. Please post here only if it should concern editorial or administrative matters affecting you directly. And Loosmark, you have made your opinion known in, now, how many different forums? I really, really don't need to hear it another twenty times. ] ] 06:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | CoM, you must have noticed that I removed your last post in this matter here with the edit summary "unwelcome". Just in case I need to spell out in more detail what this means. It means that posts from you to my talk page in matters of other users are, and will be, exactly that: unwelcome. You are not among the users I appreciate feedback from in matters of my administrative work. Please post here only if it should concern editorial or administrative matters affecting you directly. And Loosmark, you have made your opinion known in, now, how many different forums? I really, really don't need to hear it another twenty times. ] ] 06:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :I'm sure you're aware FPaS that as an administrator your talk page is an appropriate venue for discussion. Your attitude and approach are abusive and disruptive. If you aren't willing to engage in discussion and to be civil and collegial with your fellow editors then you have no business being an admin. And in response to Moreschi I would simply point out that I have most certainly experienced the frustrations of dealing with nationalist and POV pushing editors. However, Jarucek's recent comments weren't any more disruptive than those I've seen from you on ANI and elsewhere. Again, I am simply requesting that Future Perfect at Sunrise respects the consensus among uninvolved editors and admins who have made it clear that his actions have been overly aggressive and improper. It's time to set things right so we can all return to more productive pursuits in the collaborative building of an encyclopedia instead of being sidetracked with FPaS's punitive and arrogant insistence on staying a course that has been shown to be unhelpful drama mongering. It's enough already. ] (]) 08:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | :I'm sure you're aware FPaS that as an administrator your talk page is an appropriate venue for discussion. Your attitude and approach are abusive and disruptive. If you aren't willing to engage in discussion and to be civil and collegial with your fellow editors then you have no business being an admin. And in response to Moreschi I would simply point out that I have most certainly experienced the frustrations of dealing with nationalist and POV pushing editors. However, Jarucek's recent comments weren't any more disruptive than those I've seen from you on ANI and elsewhere. Again, I am simply requesting that Future Perfect at Sunrise respects the consensus among uninvolved editors and admins who have made it clear that his actions have been overly aggressive and improper. It's time to set things right so we can all return to more productive pursuits in the collaborative building of an encyclopedia instead of being sidetracked with FPaS's punitive and arrogant insistence on staying a course that has been shown to be unhelpful drama mongering. It's enough already. ] (]) 08:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :: CoM, you've burst in here calling FPaS "abusive", "arrogant", and other such things. All very well, and I suppose you are entitled to express your opinion, but you can't subsequently attempt to assume a moral high ground about manners, and you |
:: CoM, you've burst in here calling FPaS "abusive", "arrogant", and other such things. All very well, and I suppose you are entitled to express your opinion, but you can't subsequently attempt to assume a moral high ground about manners, and you certainly shouldn't expect to be taken seriously as a source of neutral counsel. ] (<small>]</small>) 12:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == the latest Dodona sock == | == the latest Dodona sock == | ||
Revision as of 12:28, 4 November 2009
American Faust
You did not respond to my posting, just deleted the document, with no response or notification. Where is the copyright violation? Please correspond respectfully on this matter.
 Archives |
|---|
Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here
International Monarchist Conference
Hello,
I try to add external and neutral sources. Is this that which you wish?
Thank you for your answer,
Pouzols
Vuk Brankovic
Yes that's what I wanted to say, your first revision was bed, it looked like Vuk Brankovic belonged to the house of Nemanjic, and I wanted to say that his family had a prominent rol in the Nemanjic Serbia ( as in Victorian England or Capetian France= shorter form for the England in the time of queen Victoria or France in the time of the Capets ). Thanks for adding articles I often forget about them, useless things:) Clanedstino
Peer review request
I've finally finished a major expansion of the inner German border article - it's the 20th anniversary next month of the border being opened and the fall of the Berlin Wall. I'd be very grateful if you could have a look at the article and let me have any comments on how you think it could be improved. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
User talk:MessiniaGreece
This user, whose block recently expired, has left a note for you (in Greek) in the form of an unblock request. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Stop.
Thats because i noticed on some articles that included historic tallest buildings, that they included the ethnic names. So i added the historic names, and not just german crap, to the articles. Then it was quickly reverted so i just layed off since people didnt seem to think it was a good idea. Can you please familiarize yourself with the LUCPOL situation. He created the article on MAUS about 4 years ago and he seems to be the only one editing it. I have posted many disscussions on his talk page, but im not sure i can understand his poor grasp of english, which by the way i try to correct on articles he has created (which exclusively deal with Silesian topics), and it quickly is reverted.-- Hroþberht (gespraec) 07:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
He lied about one of the two english sources he added, well actually none of the english sources he added to that article say anything about MAUS. The one he lied about was supposedly a link to Eurostat, but was instead a link to a polish website entitled Urban Audit.org. He has labeled me a vandal twice in the past day on the same article in his edit summaries. All seven external links on MAUS are to Polish websites. All Seven sources are in Polish. There is a policy on this, stating the necessity for English sources. -- Hroþberht (gespraec) 07:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, this last point is a misunderstanding: there is no policy against non-English sources. Non-English sources can be just as reliable as English ones. English ones are preferred where available, for practical reasons, but non-English ones are allowed wherever needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- How is someone supposed to identify and verify information in a source if its in an unintelligible language?
-- Hroþberht (gespraec) 07:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed how if someone even so much as edits one of the articles he created, he will quickly revert all changes. (example: -- Hroþberht (gespraec) 07:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I come onto wikipedia today and this is the first thing i see:
- User talk:R9tgokunks#Your vandalisms again Four times in two days he calls me a vandal and my edits vandalism.
-- Hroþberht (gespraec) 20:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Tsarist autocracy
Hello FP. You have commented on this article. Question: it uses Google search results, are these acceptable in-article references? If so, do you have a guideline link? Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's quite uncommon, to say the least. The whole thing strikes me as rather OR'ish. Of course, one might argue that the google books search result is just a shortcut to many actual, legitimate sources, which one could just as well quote separately. But as soon as there is some implication that these search results are somehow representative of different stances in scholarship, it becomes essentially an OR argument, especially if, as here, it appears coupled with a more or less self-made WP:SYNTH argument about how these different terms do or do not refer to essentially the same thing.
- But in any case, this is just my outsider's 2c, and I do not really intend to start editing that article or engaging in the debates there. I'm basically still just watching this whole thing from the neutral-administrator perspective, just trying to figure out which parties are engaging in constructive sincere discussion in search of true NPOV and which do not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please note its not Google search but the much more reliable Google Books, the point was to answer criticism that those terms don't exist. Instead of giving one example - which can be easily done (and added to current refs), I wanted to show that they are actually widely used (and none shows a clear dominance). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I asked about this ref'ing issue at the Village Pump policy page. Further discussion is probably better held there or at the article talk page. Thx for reply, Novickas (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
On confusion regarding vanishing
I should've read the policy in detail before commenting on it (but read on...). Policies change. The section you were basing your argument on (I presume the "What vanishing is not" at WP:RTV), was new to me when I read it last week - and is quite new. In particular, it is still not present at meta:Right to vanish, and it was added to our RtV only in July 2008 (and I am pretty sure the last time I read it must have been before then). Further, I was basing my posts on what I've seen (an unfortunately biased sample, perhaps). Here's are two examples I am familiar with (those are not complains about those users, merely an illustration of what I've seen done (still) uncriticized by other admins): 1) User:Altenmann is former User:SemBubenny, in turn former User:Mikkalai (at least those are the incarnations I know). Mikka is also an administrator (Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Mikkalai), but there is no information anywhere that he has changed names and is now Altenmann. Maybe that information is somewhere deep, deep in contribs history or RfUsernameChange - but overall, making a connections between Mikka and Altenmann is pretty hard. 2) In another example, User:Deacon of Pndapetzim changed his name from User:Calgacus and went to RfA under the new name. Yes, he disclosed the name change in RfAdm (although it is hardly stressed), and edit history of Calgacus userpage and its talk does point to Deacon's - but one can wonder how would his RfA turn out if it was under the old name (for example, I don't watch Calgacus userpage, but I do watch feed from new RfA; I'd have likely voted in his RfA if it appeared at my feed as RfA/Calgacus but at that point I had no idea Deacon was Calgacus and so I never realized an editor I have some opinions and experience with is taking RfA). Based on those two examples (and cursory reading of RtV years ago...) - I thought my recommendations were within policy and our customs. I stand corrected now; however I hardly see the reason to fuss much about my misunderstanding of (evolving) policy that was never acted upon, particularly where others have actually taken such (or similar) actions (and I am would be very surprised if the two examples I am familiar with are the only ones in this project - isn't the recent Law affair another illustration of how various people misinterpret RtV?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 September 22#File:Atta in airport.jpg
I'm interested in your reasoning behind that close, with respect to this edit. Your close says "I am ruling that this image is in the PD." Your edit to the file says "But I might be wrong." I also note that you asked Stifle about his closure, and expressly said you would be uncomfortable with two opposite closures of apparently equal nature. Was there a reason you chose to do it anyway? ÷seresin 20:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, let's put it like this. I personally find the PD argument convincing, I seem to remember having read about this as being a commonly accepted argument somewhere previously too, and I'd say it's strong enough that in the absence of a clear legal refutation, and in light of the overall voting situation on that IFD, it makes the whole thing at least a "no consensus" keep. I'm open to be convinced of the opposite if anybody knows of an authoritative source showing that this is not a valid interpretation. In that case, we'd have to re-evaluate the whole thing on the basis of the fair use claim, which I find weak, but it's worth keeping the fair use argument around for later reference. As for the divergence with Stifle's closure, I talked with him, and he seemed of the opinion there was a better case for this image than for the other (though perhaps not for the exact reasons I'd find compelling); on the other hand he didn't seem inclined to reconsider his closure, and I don't care enough about it to go to DRV to challenge him about it, so unless somebody else goes there and challenges either mine or his, we'll probably have to live with the contradiction. I have no big stakes in this either way – you know I'm normally a deletionist hardliner when it comes to NFC things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- FPaS, would it not come down to who was responsible for the operation of the video camera on which the subjects were captured? If the video camera is operated by a federal agency, such as the Department of Transportation, then it would be PD-US-gov. But if it is operated by a local government agency, then it may well indeed be protected by copyright, depending on whether state govt materials are PD or not. But of course, we can't have a situation where the image has both a NFCC rationale, plus a PD template at the same time. Thoughts on that? --Russavia 21:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the argument was that nobody was actually "operating" the camera at all, in the sense of doing human creative work with it, because it just automatically recorded things without human intervention. No creativity = no copyright. That's in fact independent of the PD-USGov thing. As for the templates, I don't think the rationales do any harm, even if they are redundant as long as the PD claim is considered valid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- FPaS, would it not come down to who was responsible for the operation of the video camera on which the subjects were captured? If the video camera is operated by a federal agency, such as the Department of Transportation, then it would be PD-US-gov. But if it is operated by a local government agency, then it may well indeed be protected by copyright, depending on whether state govt materials are PD or not. But of course, we can't have a situation where the image has both a NFCC rationale, plus a PD template at the same time. Thoughts on that? --Russavia 21:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
i only said
i am proud for your liquidating intervention there. dunno where the script things came from. keep it up. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
application
Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You recommed me to ask AN, then 2 admins said premature. So I obeyed their order like your order. Then I edited too difficult and too nationalitc articles for fulfill their demands as far as I could. And I also obeyed your order from 13:33, 21 January 2009. I handled many dispute without troubles. Please release the topic ban.--Bukubku (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- He posted the same request on my page. I'm looking into it. Would appreciate your looking into it too. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Reviewing a sample of Bukubku's recent contributions, I'm afraid I can not support a lifting of the topic ban. Bukubku has been editing on highly charged ideological issues surrounding Japan's WWII past that are quite similar to the Korean-Japanese topics he was banned over. His recent edits to Manchukuo and similar pages related to WWII and imperial Japan shows a continuing stance of promoting a clear ideological agenda. This user's goal on this project is POV advocacy, and we don't want yet more of that spilling back into the Japanese–Korean area. Moreover, it is also still true that Bukubku writes very poor English, and many of his edits clearly degrade article quality . This wouldn't normally be such a big problem – we generally welcome non-native writers of English, and tolerate quite a lot of poor English on the way, on the grounds that if the content of the edits on the whole is productive other users will often be glad to correct the formal errors. However, one thing that people with poor English skills should not do is actively edit sensitive hotspots of POV disputes. Negotiating NPOV over such articles requires full active command of the subtleties of the English language both in the wording of article text and in talk page debate. People with English skills at Bukubku's level will generally not be a help in this process, especially not if they come to it with a potentially disruptive POV agenda. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, your comment. My first application time, Rlevse said to me like that few edits since Feb and even fewer outside his "home turf" of Japanese articles So I had to edit difficult issues like JK relations. Are there serious troubles about my editions except for poor English? Point out concretely my POV editions, please. And I talked in talke page. When you blocked me, my edition of Comfort women is not bad grammatically, and I cited from NYtimes. And I provieded for you many sources. In case Manchukuo, I cited from "Twilight in the Forbidden City". The book is very very famous. Please read the book without prejudice. And I didn't conceal Japanese bad things. Certainly, sometimes my editions were not good, however most of my edition is not POV.--Bukubku (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you can't find the book at libraries, I will send you. I want you to read the book.--Bukubku (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
See User_talk:Bukubku#Blocked — Rlevse • Talk • 18:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Ion Gigurtu
Hi. I know this situation is a bit of a mess and I'm sorry for causing it. I honestly believed that site's license allowed for using their content here, and I completely regret misinterpreting it. It was a mistake, but not a malicious one. And I will certainly never repeat it. However, let me be very clear that not one iota of their article on Gigurtu went into the one Dahn and I wrote. Yes, ER and I used largely the same sources. But I independently went to those books and worked directly from those sources myself. Given this, I would kindly ask that you restore the article. - Biruitorul 21:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, first of all, I'm quite sure you acted in good faith here, no problem about that. But as for not copying things in this particular article, I'm not very good at Romanian, but to me "Fiul al generalului Petre Gigurtu, a urmat şcoala primară şi gimnazială în oraşul natal, iar studiile liceale la Craiova. Urmează cursuri universitare la Academia de mine din Freiburg şi Charlottemburg, devenind după terminarea acestora inginer de mine. Între 1912 şi 1919, Gigurtu activează ca inspector industrial pe lângă Mnisterul Industriei şi Comerţului. Din calitatea sa de ofiţer, participă atât la Al Doilea Război Balcanic " looks decidedly similar to "Born in Turnu Severin to General Petre Gigurtu, he attended primary school and gymnasium in his native city, followed by high school in Craiova. He then went to Germany, pursuing secondary studies at the Freiberg Mining Academy and the Royal Technical College of Charlottenburg and becoming a mining engineer. From 1912 to 1916, he worked as an industrial inspector at the Romanian Ministry of Industry and Commerce. During the Second Balkan War in 1913, he was a sub-lieutenant ... " – Sorry, but either you copied from ER, or both you and ER copied from a third source; either way we have a problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, I'm logging off and going to bed now; we can talk again tomorrow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I certainly didn't use ER - indeed I didn't even look at their version until after I'd finished mine (and decided there was nothing there worth using). Yes, we both used Stelian Neagoe's work, which is written in a dry, factual tone (without verbs, in fact) - there aren't that many ways of saying he was the son of a general, went to school in Craiova and Germany, and fought in World War I. I can certainly try and reword some of that, but there's already some difference, and I don't know quite how much else could be changed without deviating from the source. See you tomorrow. - Biruitorul 21:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, I'm logging off and going to bed now; we can talk again tomorrow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Future. I would like to see the article restored in its previous form, given that, in this case at least, the accusation of copyright infringement seems to be bogus - whatever it had started at, it had become something completely different, and, as Biruitorul says, the info that was alleged to closely resemble some other source appears to be dry facts. Even the samples that you cite above are far, far from identical. My own work (which unwittingly included some edits on the text already in there) was entirely lost in the process, and I don't believe my edits had in any way been the subject of any such discussion. I also know for a fact that at least part of Biruitorul's research on this subject was genuine - since it was from sources I had suggested he should use.
Now, I just want to make this comment before we close this matter - close it, because I really resent having to debate any matter with Radufan, even by proxy. The ER project, which apparently started with the frustration of some wikipedia editors that they can't protect their questionable contributions from genuine scrutiny (and obsesses over a fallacy according to which wikipedia is going commercial) includes, among others, former contributors who have made their mark on the Romanian wikipedia with one or both of the following: blatant, obscene, plagiarism of content copy-pasted (not adapted, not translated) from various sources; endorsing and preserving at least one neonazi propaganda outlet as a source for content. Much of this still lingers on the Romanian wiki project, and the users in question took their retreat before they could be held accountable for it (although not before, while still an admin, Radufan himself threatened to block me several times, blocked me once for a whole week, and harassed me repeatedly for bringing this to the community's attention; this even if he was - and still is - in a conflict of interest). Dahn (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
In fact, let me attempt to translate the ER fragment you cite above into English, and compare it with Biruitorul's text:
- "A son of general Petre Gigurtu, he attended primary school and gymnasium in his native city, and took high school studies in Craiova. He took university-level courses at the Freibug mining academy and in Charlottemburg, becoming a mining engineer upon graduation. Between 1912 and 1919, Gigurtu was employed as an industrial inspector by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. As an officer, he took part in both the Second Balkan War "
- "Born in Turnu Severin to General Petre Gigurtu, he attended primary school and gymnasium in his native city, followed by high school in Craiova. He then went to Germany, pursuing secondary studies at the Freiberg Mining Academy and the Royal Technical College of Charlottenburg and becoming a mining engineer. From 1912 to 1916, he worked as an industrial inspector at the Romanian Ministry of Industry and Commerce. During the Second Balkan War in 1913, he was a sub-lieutenant ... "
Let's note the following: Biruitorul's version offers more (and more accurate) detail than the ER sample, and, unlike it, actually cites a source, with an exact reference. The measure to which they are identical puts to the test the limits of one's vocabulary - in just how many ways, without randomly cutting down relevant info, could one possibly phrase a bare and exact text? That bare and exact text most likely follows from the source: the clues are that Birutorul went directly to the source - he, unlike ER, spells out what school Gigurtu attended in Charlottenburg, and gives his exact rank in the Army. As Biruitorul himself put it, ER editors are not the only ones who can read a book. And, btw, the main reason why I would think one hasn't and can't be copying the ER in this instance is the exceptionally poor quality of the ER article: they call the city Charlottemburg, they spell the word Ministerul as Mnisterul etc. In fact, given that the ER article has stereotypical, jingoistic, antiquated and bombastic references (WWI is referred to with the fallacious title "the War for Integrating the Nation", the antisemitic agitator A. C. Cuza is referred to as "Professor Cuza", and so on), it may turn out that it is the one uncritically copying one source it may or may not cite in its bibliography. Dahn (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I've restored the edit history then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Dahn (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Jeeez
Jeeezzz. I logged yesterday to Misplaced Pages, not all of us watch and work on it 24hours a day. It will take time before I respond to everything--Molobo (talk) Also what does it mean to strike out ? Is it like this "------" ? I know only basic editing functions on Misplaced Pages, so I don't know how striking works, and would need instructions.--Molobo (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Ok I stroke that out, although I for my defence must say it looks very similiar to Polnische Bande or Banditen that was used by Nazi propaganda. I trust that per your comment you will stroke yours out also ? Also since you know German well-what does the sentence Wirklich verübeln kann man es denen aber nicht, die wurden bis in die Neunziger so geimpft daß eine neutralere Sicht schwer fällt. mean ? --Molobo (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
""das spricht Bände" actually meant? " An so the bandits speak. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The Albanians in Medieval Epirus
You reverted the mergeto tags that I added to The Albanians in Medieval Epirus. I realize that copyvio material can't itself be merged. What I meant by those tags is that a version of the page, rewritten to avoid copyvios, might appropriately be merged into one or both of Albanian people or Epirus. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC) =
Please consider reversing your deletion of a whole entry on American Faust
You deleted the entry on the film American Faust: From Condi to Neo-Condi. While certain sections did have clear similarities with an entry found on Facebook, the factual content remains the same and corroborated by references. The information box, the reviews, the history, the style sections are all in the public domain now as facts. It is also established practice to first inform the page's creator before you delete the entire entry. Why did you not do this? Let's avoid abritration here. Please re-instate the page to allow for the appropriate edits to take place, and we can then reach some kind of consensus. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacnewton7 (talk • contribs)
- Uhm, no, sorry. Both the first version I deleted and the second version you re-created in the meantime (and which I have now deleted too) were clear copyright violations, as far as I can see more or less in their entirety. Obvious copyright violations are subject to speedy deletion. Please do not restore this kind of text. You are welcome to create a new article if you can write it entirely on your own, based on reliable sources. Please also note that according to our policy on biographies of living people you must avoid turning it into an attack page on Rice – this means you need to strictly avoid anything that would imply the article endorsing the criticism of Rice made by the film. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have amended it further, and taken out the items that you objected to. Please now confirm that there are no violations.
Thracians
Hey Future Perfect at Sunrise, thank you for rewording the Physical Characteristics section. I believe it is much more appropriate in this manner and functions to create a unifying potential between various divided populations. An assortment of propaganda sources have created artificial socio-cultural fault lines between peoples throughout the world, and I believe it is our job as Wikipedian editors to ensure that statements are made in such a way as to not suppress nor diminish the connection we all have with our largely common heritage. I believe Misplaced Pages itself functions to unite people in the strategic sense (long term), whilst on a tactical level (short term) it is inevitable that we sometimes come into friction with one another. That said, we are all here to create a community of nations, to respect each other and to treat all ethnic/cultural groups with a sense of justice, temperance, fortitude and wisdom (the four classical ideals). Perhaps this is the surest way to building a global society that is largely modeled on the global forum herein. Thanks again for your help and I hope you and I can constructively work together in the future. You are obviously intelligent, and I value your contribution to the article.--Monshuai (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Strohviol
Happy to help, and thanks really go to you for doing the legwork of figuring this out! I only asked the question. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Austrian Science Fund recent reverts in Albania!
This text from the Austrian Science Fund seem so be pretty interesting. I saw you reverted it, and you did rightly so. The text was formulated in a way that NPOV seemed questionable. However, mentioning that such a research is currently being made by this Austrian organization seems to be a good idea. What do you think? (BTW I do not know the history of RashersTierney who added the link and you, so I will try not to be part of that discussion) —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- The link was added by socks of User:Dodona, a long-term banned sockpuppeter who has an annoying habit of getting enthusiastic over ripped-out-of-context and half-digested bits and pieces of sources, which he will then spam obsessively over multiple pages, while entirely lacking the academic competence to understand what it's all about. The research project as such is of course interesting (I have some professional interest in that kind of research, so I should know). But keep in mind it's a project that's only just started and has no results published yet; the ideas described in the text are only initial working hypotheses. Also, the text itself is not an academic publication but only a piece of popularised advertisement blurb published through the university's public relations office. And I'm not sure to what extent the public relations people got it right – the way it's worded it sounds a bit fishy, because it's far from obvious from me how these guys in Vienna plan to study the development of the Balkan linguistic union through the medium of the written documentation of "Old" Albanian, when the "Old" apparently refers merely to the 16th-18th century AD, which is long after the formation of the linguistic area. But be that as it may, they appear to be competent specialists, so they probably know what they are doing. I'll be very interested to see some results from their study, and when those come out they may well warrant a remark or two in the Balkan linguistic union article or the the relevant section of the Albanian language article.
- An interesting little observation on the side, by the way: there's a remark somewhere there that they believe there's some evidence of postposed definite articles in Proto-Albanian already in antiquity. I looked around a bit to find out what they might mean by that, and found references to an article by Hamp from 1982 about "The oldest Albanian syntagma". I haven't been able to read it yet, but from citations of it I find on the web, it seems Hamp was referring to some document of Moesian. Which means if he and the Vienna guys were treating that as a piece of evidence relevant to proto-Albanian, they must be among those who regard Moesian rather than Illyrian as the linguistic ancestor. Just so you guys know what you're buying into ... ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick reply. You seem to be competent enough on the issue. I personally do not have any "preferred" hypothesis about Albanian language origin. I am familiar with Hamp's work though. I know that he was a real "fan" of Thracian-Albanian hypothesis. And later on, when some sentences in Thracian were found, and no relation of them with Albanian was found, I know that his research shifted. His most recent published book on the issue (in Prishtina 2007) leans more towards the Illyrian-Albanian hypothesis. Though not leaving aside other theories. —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I do not see how is RashersTierney a sock of User:Dodona. He seems to be a user for a year, and no edits on anything even related to Albanian, Illyrians or similar. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh no, RashersTierney isn't a sock, of course not. He was just a well-meaning passer-by who tried to improve the addition without being aware of the background. The passage was first inserted by this IP, who was a Dodona sock, and then incidentally edit-warred back in by another unrelated banned user , a User:Wikinger sock, who has a habit of randomly reverting anything I do from time to time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hahaha, cool :) —Anna Comnena (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone has beef with you (Whom you blocked).
User Talk:Jimbo Wales. To me, looks like typical sock behaviour.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. Yes, very sockish behaviour indeed. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
User:Notonekilled was quite disruptive - thank you for blocking them.Autarch (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Админ
Is there no way to stop this user creating more accounts and continuing to be annoying? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- The only technical measure would be a range block, but that is often quite difficult and it's usually done only in quite extreme cases (depending on what kind of IP range it is, the amount of collateral damage and so on.) Since the vandalism seemed to be concentrated on a single page, I've semi-protected that, which ought to help some. Apart from that, I can only offer you to come here and give me a shout if he turns up again and you should fail to get a timely response elsewhere. Just saw your remark over at the SPI page about being sent from one place to another – sorry about that; I know this can be damned frustrating. I often wonder what those guys at AIV are doing. But fact is, SPI is such a slow and bureaucratic monstrum. In fact, I've been working it today only because I've got a report of my own sitting at the bottom of the backlog and wanted to speed up things a bit so my colleagues will finally process that... Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I didn't realise they were operating from a wide range of IPs. Note also that they have been vandalising AIV as well, which I'm not watching. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
79.191.252.68
Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise, I've blocked IP address 79.191.252.68 for 48 hours for reverting your multiple edits on Greek alphabets. See Special:Contributions/79.191.252.68. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. Obviously another User:Wikinger sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
RFA spam
| Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
|---|---|
| |
| Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing | |
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Grundle2600: continued problems
This is to let you know of the above ANI - it is directly relevant (and refers) to this discussion where you participated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Seems a Dodona style activity is recently active in Moscopole ]. I've reverted this edit once, but the editor seems too enthousiastic about specific sentences in this book ]. Thanks for your time.Alexikoua (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
SPI
Could you please comment on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Entlínkt ist doof! 22? Thanks.— Dædαlus 18:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- @FutPerf. Hehe, sorry, I keep getting these sockmasters mixed up. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Space Cadet.
This user has similar edits to LUCPOL, and he usually gives inadequete and often misleading edit summaries sometimes one word answers ("incorrect", ), while also simply stating "reverting vandal" or the like. And he simply is removing valid content, usually without an edit summary, as seen here: and , and . Specifically these edits he tries to portray a knowledge of a "historically accurate consensus", which there was none "consensus" on the talk page, but when i point out to him there is none, he changes it to "historically correct version", even though the name he is adding was not in existence until 1945, which is what im trying to say. 1. 2.
my information for this is since it was settled with a Prussian/Germanic name, and also this statement, "It was placed under Polish administration according to the Potsdam Conference in 1945. The town of Braunberg, previously known as Brunsberga in older Polish records, was then renamed to Braniewo." this information is apparent on the german and polish wikipedias as well. -- Hroþberht - picture yourself in a boat on a river... (gespraec) 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The warning
This is regarding this warning you have placed on my talk page. In it you called my actions 'disruptive POV-driven editing'. Can you please clarify how removing phrasing so-called experts attributed to the members of Soviet commission, which is obviously non-neutral and does not exist in the sources, constitute 'POV-driven editing'.
You also placed similar notice on talk page of user Loosmark who already had been placed under formal notice by adminiatrator Thatcher . What the purpose of second-time warning in this case?
Can you please also clarify whether the notice placed in my talk page a formal notification of editing restrictions (similar to that placed by Theatcher on Loosmark) or should be considered merely as a warning.--Dojarca (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Signature fixed
I fixed my signature- I often wondered why sometimes it would create a new line. I thought it was because of my widescreen display, but it was due to my extra code. DOH! Thanks!
To add, I just got Ostrogorsky's History of the Byzantine State, and it is far better than I thought it would be. Monsieurdl 14:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
rev
Understood. No worries.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Varsovian
Please note that the content issues were being resolved on a talk page. Your review and stricture may be premature because this issue was elevated by another editor. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC).
- See: findings/ FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC).
Your comments about me
Could you please be so kind as to explain how the statement "Varsovian appeared in late September pretending to be a new user, but with all the signs of experience and with an obvious agenda of stirring the shit in Eastern-Europe conflict areas and picking fights with certain Polish users" fits with Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith? Could you also be so kind as to explain how it fits with Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers. I would also much like to know how using the phrase "stirring the shit" to describe somebody's edits and/or communication fits with Misplaced Pages:Civility. Furthermore, I note that you say "picking fights with certain Polish users (especially User:Jacurek and User:Loosmark)". Could you please identify Polish users which you feel I have been picking fights with? It may well be that I need to review and adjust the way I communicate with other users here. Thank you in advance for any time which you may be able to spare on dealing with my questions.Varsovian (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, please could you be so kind as to refrain from removing my statements from my talkpage. Thank you.Varsovian (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. Malicious harassment by banned users gets removed as a matter of routine, period. You showed very poor judgment in even responding to it and not immediately reverting it yourself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- By all means remove the malicious harassment by the banned user. I am asking you not to remove my own statements from my talk page. I will be grateful if you can please be so kind as to revert my statement to my talk page.
- I note your advice as to my very poor judgment as to responding to the message and not immediately reverting it. Could you please go into detail as to how I should have known that the message was from a banned user? I'd be very interested to know that.Varsovian (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- You may not have been aware it was a banned user, but it was plain obvious it was malicious harassment and a forbidden outing attempt. In fact, the parts you restored still contained those elements. Now please go and do something else, because I don't like to spend more time dealing with that person's very tiresome and boring harassment campaign, and by making a fuss over it you are in effect perpetuating it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I 'may' not have been aware? I'm sorry but is there something which you wish to imply by that choice of verb? Please note that I am asking a question there and it is not a rhetorical one. I am more than happy to offer whatever help I am able to offer if you are the victim of a very tiresome and boring harassment campaign but I would be grateful if you could refrain from removing my statements from my talk page. I have now removed all information which contain elements of harassment and left the parts which state that I prefer to converse via talk pages and would be grateful if people could sign their posts.Varsovian (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are still thanking a banned user for posting outing attacks to your page, and encouraging him to post again. If you have a sense of decency, you will remove that too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I was thanking an unknown poster who had not signed his name. However, I shall now edit the post so as to strikethrough the thanks which were initially offered. I hope that this will suffice, please advise if it does not.Varsovian (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are still thanking a banned user for posting outing attacks to your page, and encouraging him to post again. If you have a sense of decency, you will remove that too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I 'may' not have been aware? I'm sorry but is there something which you wish to imply by that choice of verb? Please note that I am asking a question there and it is not a rhetorical one. I am more than happy to offer whatever help I am able to offer if you are the victim of a very tiresome and boring harassment campaign but I would be grateful if you could refrain from removing my statements from my talk page. I have now removed all information which contain elements of harassment and left the parts which state that I prefer to converse via talk pages and would be grateful if people could sign their posts.Varsovian (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- You may not have been aware it was a banned user, but it was plain obvious it was malicious harassment and a forbidden outing attempt. In fact, the parts you restored still contained those elements. Now please go and do something else, because I don't like to spend more time dealing with that person's very tiresome and boring harassment campaign, and by making a fuss over it you are in effect perpetuating it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Inexperienced Admin
Discussion on talk page isn't disruptive edit.
I reverted vandalism. Type of vandalism BLANKING - Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. this is not false accusation -- LONTECH Talk 18:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
ohh you are greek
i dint realized until now i was wondering why you banned me-- LONTECH Talk 13:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you ...
Sorry to bother you yet again with this one. You are probably sick and tired of EE Europe mess but since you suspected Matthead of using socks while editing I would like you to take a look at this sudden arrival of anon in support of Mattheads changes.]. Same editing style, same edit summary tone etc. etc...]this is so obvious...I'm not asking for anything but just letting you know that your suspicions were not groundless. Regards--Jacurek (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- and now this....my conversation with user Varsovian yesterday.]:
"You really are comedy gold! Firstly, to speak for myself I have no idea which night bus I would take to get home: I use these things called taxis. Secondly my assistant says that you are an idiot (although I would never use such incivil language to you). N24 does not go to Saska Kepa: it goes to Praga-Poludnie. To get to Saska Kepa she would take N72.Varsovian (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)"
He was just blocked for similar behaviour and edit warring right? ] as well as warned later here]. Now he goes again and is edit warring against two editors and indirectly calling me an idiot. Future Perfect at Sunrise please advice when you get a chance.--Jacurek (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- You may wish to note that I did not call you anything and specifically state that I would never use such incivil language to you. Despite the fact that you have repeatedly accused me of being a troll and a puppet and a liar, I am still being civil to you.
- Someguy1221: Does WP:AGF mean that I should assume that an editor is telling the truth when they say that they live in a particular city or that I should follow the example of Jacurek and assume that they are lying, ask them if they even know what a person from their city is called and then ask repeated questions in an attempt to prove that they are lying?
- You may also want to note that Jacurek started this section after the attempt by him and Loosmark to have me banned here were called a "content dispute/conflict" by two uninvolved editors. What a co-incidence!Varsovian (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
F.P.a.S., you may or may not want my opinion here, due to my involvement in WP:EEML, but I have posted at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Varsovian_edit_warring_on_the_London_Victory_Parade_of_1946_article with a notice for admins to take note of the WP:AE currently going on. Perhaps this should be left to AE, because not only the editor brought to AE can be sanctioned, but perhaps you could lock the article until such time as these guys go to WP:RFC to request outside comment on the state of the article, and sources and the like. And perhaps suggest that both editors stay away from the article for a week or something could be done as well? --Russavia 18:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also F.P.a.S., I have removed content from the talk page which has nothing to do with article improvement, but everything to do with bitching between editors. I think it is plain to see that there is no "right" or "wrong" side here, as they are both in the wrong I think? Perhaps you could use your admin abilities to do what I suggest above (locking the article), as I am sure you are getting sick and tired of seeing this dispute being played out on your talk page :) --Russavia 18:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please do lock it while we get outside help. Varsovian (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm in favor of locking the article, no problem here and never was. However I will still question how real the account Varsovian is and what is his agenda since from the very beginning of his sudden arrival in September all he did is almost entirely focused on one article and one editor with evidence of very good editing experience.--Jacurek (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Jacurek, start to show some WP:AGF in that regard. I understand a checkuser has been denied. Until such time as there is proof of anything, you need to assume good faith and collaborate with ALL editors. It's the type of questioning that you are doing now that got editors involved in the EEML mess. Don't worry about his agenda and he won't worry about your agenda. As to the article, the compromise is staring you both in the face, but as I am currently under a topic ban, I am unable to offer what the compromise may be, due to the fact that it would require me mentioning something that is covered by my topic ban. It's staring you both in the faces, but neither of you see it, or refuse to see it...I don't know...but work it out, or stay away from the article for a period. --Russavia 19:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Was this Varsovians aim? ]--Jacurek (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- No that wasn't my aim. Varsovian (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is it now time to mark that thread as resolved? Mjroots (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Advice?
Hi, FP. I'm having some trouble over at the Sultanate of Rûm article with a user reinserting dubious flags despite various talkpage arguments against their inclusion and a request to join in the discussion there. I'm torn between requesting temporary semi-protection or launching an SPI, since I believe this user may be a reincarnation of one or more previous accounts. I wonder if you might weigh in here? Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Possible problem at Kiev
Future, there is a potential problem brewing at Kiev. There is a fairly steady, but low-speed, stream of attempts by Ukrainian nationals to change the name of this article to Kyiv, which is the official Ukrainian transliteration, but not yet common English usage. A new patriot has shown up with this post. It is a cut and paste from this, which includes a call-to-arms to "fix" Misplaced Pages. I don't know who is soliciting the masses, but it doesn't look appropriate. Please advise. Thanks. (Taivo (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
- I just noticed that "Marko" is identical with "Markiyan" at this forum where he actually calls for action. This is blatant meat puppetry. (Taivo (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
- In investigating, I noted this as an example of the wholesale change in spelling that is happening in many places. While I don't personally oppose the spelling of "Kyiv", it is not the most common spelling in English at this time. It is another case of a nationalist agenda that is trying to steamroll through Misplaced Pages without respect to consensus or process. (Taivo (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for blocking him. I have deleted my personal information from my user page as well. Is there any way that I can remove that page's history as well so that someone can't just come along and look at a diff to get it back? (Taivo (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
- Yes you can. See Misplaced Pages:Oversight for details.Varsovian (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Since almost every word of my message to Moreschi can be applied also to you, consider that my proposition to him is addressed also to you. You can take a note from the recently exchanged discussions which describe the issue, have a look at the deleted refs and give a balanced solution. I believe the situation is mature for such a solution and if the text is balanced everybody will accept it since all are tired enough with it and have expended their arguments although the issue is not being solved since the text is just going back and forth again and again. --Factuarius (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Jacurek's block
Could you please explain why have you blocked Jacurek but failed to take any action against Varsovian who started the whole mess and who called Jacurek an idiot which is a direct civility violation? Thanks. Loosmark (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- While I have already said that I want to make no comment about Future Perfect's actions or your comments about me, please note that I have already apologised twice for my incivility and that I did not actually call Jacurek an idiot.Varsovian (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I blocked Jacurek because, after the history of quite unconstructive behaviour and edit-warring on the 1946 parade article, the aggression in this particular exchange appeared quite clearly to come from his side primarily; in particular, his persistent attempt at proving Varsovian a liar about what his username implied was clearly beyond the line. As you know, I too have had doubts about the Varsovian account, but after what I've seen of him during the last few days I must certainly recognise that he is a separate editor personality and not a sock of any other user I'm familiar with. I must also recognise that he has made some positive gestures towards restoring a basis for collaboration, which is more than can be said about his opponents as far as I can see now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I blocked Jacurek because, after the history of quite unconstructive behaviour and edit-warring on the 1946 parade article Logic says that both sides were edit warring at least just the same, since Jacurek could have not possibly edit warred with himself. his persistent attempt at proving Varsovian a liar about what his username implied was clearly beyond the line. In my opinion it was not. Varsovian tried to again more credibility for his position in a discussion by claiming that he lives in Warsaw and even wrote(!) books about Warsaw - something that looked very unlikely. To which Jacurek simply asked him if he knows one of the main bus lines in Warsaw, a person living in Warsaw for so long would have known for sure. Varsovian didn't know and that said he was using the cab. (What, for 15 years? It would cost him a fortune). In any case if you thought that Jacurek was doing something wrong you first had to warn him about his behavior giving him a chance to re-adjust instead of immediately striking him with an incredibly severe 1 month block. And the fact remains that Varsovian called him an idiot, and I think mr.Jimbo Wales was very clear in the past that name calling is totally unacceptable.... As you know, I too have had doubts about the Varsovian account Yes I do know that, and I also know what was done to you after you expressed your doubts - something by many magnitudes worse than anything that Jacurek has done. Anyway I ask you to please reconsider your long block of Jacurek. Loosmark (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are still going on about Varsovian lying about living in Warsaw? Well, let me tell you, I just now looked a little bit more into what he did reveal about himself, and I am now perfectly satisfied he is what he says he is. By the way, I think you are also misreading the beginnings of that discussion. Varsovian didn't bring up his authorship of "books about Warsaw" in order to boost his authority in the discussion – how could he do so, when the discussion wasn't about Warsaw at all? – but in order to defend himself against Jacurek's unprovoked accusations, where he insinuated that Varsovian's username implied a lie about his identity. – As for the edit-warring part, yes, it takes two to edit-war, but that doesn't mean both parties are automatically equally at fault. As an administrator judging such situations, it is part of my task to also assess the quality of people's talk page conduct, whether they constructively strive to address and meet the other side's arguments, whether their edits show a serious quest for neutrality and a responsible reflection of sources, etc. On all these accounts, Jacurek's behaviour was worse than Varsovian's. Varsovian's version of the article had OR issues, but at least it was seriously researched, well written, well informed, and less overtly biased overall. As for warnings, Jacurek did have prior warnings, official ones under the DIGWUREN clause. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Varsovian's version of the article had OR issues, but at least it was seriously researched, well written, well informed, and less overtly biased overall. I found your comment bizzare to say the least, if an article has OR issues then it is far from being "seriously researched"(!?), "well written"(!?)... etc. In my opinion Varsovian's version was much worse, just compare the article in his current form with the one from September before Varsovian started to work on it. And regardless even if you think that Jacurek version is worse that's basically a content issue and in absolutely no way can justify a severe 1 month block. You say that Jacurek's behavior was worse than Varsovian's, so much worse that the one gets a 1 month block and the other (who called Jacurek "an idiot") nothing? This is just weird. Finally also I don't understand why you bring up the DIGWUREN clause, the article about a military parade in London is cleary not an EE topic area. Loosmark (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Uhm.... "if an article has OR issues then it is far from being 'seriously researched' " – do you perceive the self-contradiction in your statement here? Maybe you have forgotten what the "R" in "OR" stands for. Let me remind you that outside the closed world of Misplaced Pages, "original research" is not a Bad Thing. Yes, there were OR elements there, and I warned Varsovian about that, but that doesn't contradict the finding that it was well written, nor that Varsovian was the one who engaged in more substantial, more constructive and more to-the-point talk page discussion. – As for the applicability of the Digwuren case, its scope is "articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted"; this includes any article as soon as the issue of dispute is related to Eastern Europe, even if the main topic of the article is not. Since this dispute was essentially about Polish history, Digwuren is most certainly applicable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say that the dispute is more about the history of Poles in Britain (or at least the history of the Polish émigré community) than it is about Polish history, the majority of the western command Poles never returned to Poland. Although I don't actually know what you are talking about when you refer to Digwuren (the only thing I know about Digwuren is that I was warned under its terms).Varsovian (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- User:Digwuren was the eponymic hero of WP:DIGWUREN, one arbitration case among the many predecessors of the current mailing list case, where the "discretionary sanctions" clause was first introduced. Didn't I link you to it with my warning? I should have. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Future, I've seen the Digwuren link as well, but you generally just write WP:DIGWUREN, which is a long, long page full of details and lots of facts. It's never clear exactly what you're referring to when you link there. It would be helpful if you would link to a specific paragraph. Cheers. (Taivo (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
- User:Digwuren was the eponymic hero of WP:DIGWUREN, one arbitration case among the many predecessors of the current mailing list case, where the "discretionary sanctions" clause was first introduced. Didn't I link you to it with my warning? I should have. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say that the dispute is more about the history of Poles in Britain (or at least the history of the Polish émigré community) than it is about Polish history, the majority of the western command Poles never returned to Poland. Although I don't actually know what you are talking about when you refer to Digwuren (the only thing I know about Digwuren is that I was warned under its terms).Varsovian (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Uhm.... "if an article has OR issues then it is far from being 'seriously researched' " – do you perceive the self-contradiction in your statement here? Maybe you have forgotten what the "R" in "OR" stands for. Let me remind you that outside the closed world of Misplaced Pages, "original research" is not a Bad Thing. Yes, there were OR elements there, and I warned Varsovian about that, but that doesn't contradict the finding that it was well written, nor that Varsovian was the one who engaged in more substantial, more constructive and more to-the-point talk page discussion. – As for the applicability of the Digwuren case, its scope is "articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted"; this includes any article as soon as the issue of dispute is related to Eastern Europe, even if the main topic of the article is not. Since this dispute was essentially about Polish history, Digwuren is most certainly applicable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Varsovian's version of the article had OR issues, but at least it was seriously researched, well written, well informed, and less overtly biased overall. I found your comment bizzare to say the least, if an article has OR issues then it is far from being "seriously researched"(!?), "well written"(!?)... etc. In my opinion Varsovian's version was much worse, just compare the article in his current form with the one from September before Varsovian started to work on it. And regardless even if you think that Jacurek version is worse that's basically a content issue and in absolutely no way can justify a severe 1 month block. You say that Jacurek's behavior was worse than Varsovian's, so much worse that the one gets a 1 month block and the other (who called Jacurek "an idiot") nothing? This is just weird. Finally also I don't understand why you bring up the DIGWUREN clause, the article about a military parade in London is cleary not an EE topic area. Loosmark (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are still going on about Varsovian lying about living in Warsaw? Well, let me tell you, I just now looked a little bit more into what he did reveal about himself, and I am now perfectly satisfied he is what he says he is. By the way, I think you are also misreading the beginnings of that discussion. Varsovian didn't bring up his authorship of "books about Warsaw" in order to boost his authority in the discussion – how could he do so, when the discussion wasn't about Warsaw at all? – but in order to defend himself against Jacurek's unprovoked accusations, where he insinuated that Varsovian's username implied a lie about his identity. – As for the edit-warring part, yes, it takes two to edit-war, but that doesn't mean both parties are automatically equally at fault. As an administrator judging such situations, it is part of my task to also assess the quality of people's talk page conduct, whether they constructively strive to address and meet the other side's arguments, whether their edits show a serious quest for neutrality and a responsible reflection of sources, etc. On all these accounts, Jacurek's behaviour was worse than Varsovian's. Varsovian's version of the article had OR issues, but at least it was seriously researched, well written, well informed, and less overtly biased overall. As for warnings, Jacurek did have prior warnings, official ones under the DIGWUREN clause. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I blocked Jacurek because, after the history of quite unconstructive behaviour and edit-warring on the 1946 parade article Logic says that both sides were edit warring at least just the same, since Jacurek could have not possibly edit warred with himself. his persistent attempt at proving Varsovian a liar about what his username implied was clearly beyond the line. In my opinion it was not. Varsovian tried to again more credibility for his position in a discussion by claiming that he lives in Warsaw and even wrote(!) books about Warsaw - something that looked very unlikely. To which Jacurek simply asked him if he knows one of the main bus lines in Warsaw, a person living in Warsaw for so long would have known for sure. Varsovian didn't know and that said he was using the cab. (What, for 15 years? It would cost him a fortune). In any case if you thought that Jacurek was doing something wrong you first had to warn him about his behavior giving him a chance to re-adjust instead of immediately striking him with an incredibly severe 1 month block. And the fact remains that Varsovian called him an idiot, and I think mr.Jimbo Wales was very clear in the past that name calling is totally unacceptable.... As you know, I too have had doubts about the Varsovian account Yes I do know that, and I also know what was done to you after you expressed your doubts - something by many magnitudes worse than anything that Jacurek has done. Anyway I ask you to please reconsider your long block of Jacurek. Loosmark (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- do you perceive the self-contradiction in your statement here? I don't think there is any contradiction. While it might be true that outside the closed world of Misplaced Pages original research is not a bad thing unfortunately in the closed world of Misplaced Pages in which we operate it is. It's as simple as that. We can't just say that in this particular case Varsovian's OR was good, was ok or whatever. It was bad even more so because he used original researched to dissmiss of the some sources we presented. But again even if Varsovian was the one who engaged in more substantial, more contructive and more to-the-point talk page discussion (something i don't agree, calling people idiot is just ugly and bad, his rants about sources which were written after 2001 made no sense and bordered on disruptive etc) that doesn't justify a long 1 month block. As far as I know the established Admin practice is the first block is shorter, for example 24h. Loosmark (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
notification
I have asked on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that your block of Jacurek be reversed. Loosmark (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
And I've stated that while I do not wish to comment on your actions, I most certainly do not oppose Jacurek's request, if any, for such block to be lifted. However, I would like to thank you for your good-faith efforts to improve WP. I'm glad that somebody far more competent than me is an admin. If you're ever in Warsaw, let me know: I'll guide you through the local beers and the the local vodkas!Varsovian (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey FPaS. As best I can tell there was some questioning about whether someone was "authentic" and "qualified" on a subject. That's inappropriate. But what I didn't see was a notesaying, hey, please knock it off and focus on article content. And the discussions I've seen from that editor are otherwise pretty reasonable, so your month-long block seems rather punitive and excessive to me. Admittedly, I'm not up on all the history. But if the disputants can work out their differences and discuss things I think more of an effort from you to resolve and mediate before invoking the tools would have been prefereable. Maybe you can lighten the sentence? Have a great weekend and Happy Halloween. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Concern
FP, would it be possible to remove the attempted partial outing of my identity from the talk page history? I am very much concerned about real-world harm done to me, and the possibility that some editors from the Estonian POV-pushing camp might be able to piece together my identity in order to go worlds beyond cyber-bullying (as something the mailing list discussed) is definitely a very grave concern to me. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please e-mail User:Oversight (the oversight mailing list, i.e. arbitrators and a few others). They can do it better than us normal admins, and they usually react quickly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, thank you. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Ship photos advice please
What is your opinion of the copyright status of the photos of Fort Victoria and Algonquin on this website (top and bottom photo). Fort Victoria sank in 1929, Algonquin photo dates to 1943-45. Is the first one PD? I suspect that the second one will need to be Fair Use. Mjroots (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Difficult to say, I'm afraid, since the website doesn't provide any information about its own sources. To assess PD status, what one usually needs is, at a minimum, time and place of photograph, and time and place of first publication. Without those pieces of information, it's really not safe to assume anything with items from this period. Note that even fair use would be problematic, because NFCC also demands information about the owner of the copyright. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've found a PD image of Fort Victoria under her earlier name. See File:SS Willochra.jpg. Still looking for useable photo of Algonquin. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Satbir Singh
Satbir Singh (talk · contribs) - back and reverting. Time to send him home, I think. Moreschi (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Much obliged, thanks. End of a long-standing problem (fingers crossed). Moreschi (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
James Joyce image
Thank you for your note. After "sleeping on it", I was going to try to figure out what happened, because I noticed last night that the anon had added that image to the article. Thank you for tracking down its provenance. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 18:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Possible new identity for banned user
A few days ago you indefinitely blocked User:Markiyan for meat puppetry and a battleground attitude. Today a User:Londain showed up at Talk:Kiev. He made most of these changes: . His account was only created today. In one of the threatening emails Markiyan sent me (he sent about half a dozen more after he was blocked including threatening me with legal action by the Rada, no less), he gave me both a Ukrainian and a London phone number to contact him and implied that he lived in London. At the bottom of the user contribution page, you will see the portion of the website address ".of-cour.se". Markiyan is the webmaster of http://kyiv.of-cour.se/ and Londain's additions are copies of the list of embassies on that web site. Some of his statements and arguments seem to be mirrors of that web site. At this point, Londain's contributions are not disruptive and are courteous. I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on Talk:Kiev to make sure that they stay that way. Thanks. (Taivo (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
Seriously
Baiting , and taunting.radek (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Diffs
. What comments were incivil. No one has provided any diffs, which is a direct violation of WP:NPA. You can see it. It would be impossible to miss. Will you be warning them also? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- What comments were incivil? Since you keep insisting on diffs, I have finally gone to the trouble of going through all your recent contributions and picked out some of the worst. While you generally manage to stay just below the threshold where people usually get into trouble, I did make a few interesting finds:
- You say that Chilum has admitted using class A substances while editing. Fair enough.
- Baseless warning to RxS who tried to advise you that the community standards regarding drugs are not what you think they are.
- Attacking Chillum with cheap rhetorics ("If you refuse to admit it...")
- Attacking a strawman (I never claimed there was a consensus; I told you there was no consensus)
- In response to Chillum's request to stop insisting on a response to your irrelevant question and file a report, you say: "Asking you a question is not disruptive, but making false accusations is." Also vague claims of personal attacks by Chillum, without diffs.
- Insults and name-calling against Chillum. This is in response to his claim that you are misrepresenting his email to you (you said he was harassing you in it and admitting substance abuse) and his request to publish the full text of it.
- I can't make up my mind if this was sophistry or straight lying (compare first diff), but in any case this was not acceptable.
- I doubt that you will find any of this convincing, but perhaps my work will be useful for an admin. Hans Adler 16:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- "laughably ridiculous question" From RxS is inappropriate and incivil. The warning is not inappropriate but his comments are. "Attacking Chillum with cheap rhetorics" Also an incivil comment from yourself. "Attacking a strawman" definitely not incivil. "response to your irrelevant question" Definitely reveals your bias and not incivilities. "Insults and name-calling" There is no such thing, but you have crossed WP:NPA for making claims there is. "You poor victim" is not an insult. He stated that he is being victimized. Stating someone is a bad admin is not an insult, especially when it has been proven by others that he has made a long line of bad judgments. Please provide -actual- incivil comments next time. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- You bullied Chillum to answer a question which he made very clear wasn't going to answer. You threatened him with various things (don't remember the details, something like RfCs or ANI reports). I wonder in what state of mind you were when you did all that. It's a good thing you are not an admin, because you would lack capacity to be effective as one, and your inappropriate attacks verify that.
- I know that you don't like being criticised and tend to accuse people of using personal attacks etc. To make absolutely sure I don't accidentally insult you I phrased everything in a way that you just explained is OK. I hope you appreciate that. Hans Adler 19:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Bullied to answer a question? How? Furthermore, he refused to answer and people claimed he was joking. If he refuses to admit it to being a joke, then he is aiding in disruption. Hans, your understanding of policy is completely flawed and your accusations have crossed the line. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Guys, can you take this elsewhere now, please? Or better still, nowhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, especially now that I have read OR's first and third sentence. I can't be angry at someone who has the class to deliver a self-deprecating joke in this way.
- Sorry for the intrusion. Hans Adler 20:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Guys, can you take this elsewhere now, please? Or better still, nowhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Bullied to answer a question? How? Furthermore, he refused to answer and people claimed he was joking. If he refuses to admit it to being a joke, then he is aiding in disruption. Hans, your understanding of policy is completely flawed and your accusations have crossed the line. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- "laughably ridiculous question" From RxS is inappropriate and incivil. The warning is not inappropriate but his comments are. "Attacking Chillum with cheap rhetorics" Also an incivil comment from yourself. "Attacking a strawman" definitely not incivil. "response to your irrelevant question" Definitely reveals your bias and not incivilities. "Insults and name-calling" There is no such thing, but you have crossed WP:NPA for making claims there is. "You poor victim" is not an insult. He stated that he is being victimized. Stating someone is a bad admin is not an insult, especially when it has been proven by others that he has made a long line of bad judgments. Please provide -actual- incivil comments next time. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Re Starowolski.
Thank you.radek (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Fixing a mistake
Several uninvolved parties, editors and admins, have weighed on your recent month-long block of Jarucek (sp?). I find your unwillingness to correct your mistake very troubling. Despite getting feedback from several parties who have looked into the matter and found your actions to be abusive, you continue to stand by your actions and have insisted on continuing the disruption. That makes you the one who should be blocked. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, let's see, FutPerf makes a comment at AE himself to discuss his unblock, thus effectively submitting himself to community review. Abusive, uncheck. There is no consensus that the block was wrong: most of those disputing it are already involved in the dispute and just taking up their usual sides (to be fair, those supporting are also known for siding with FutPerf). Abusive, uncheck again. Looks like yet another frivolous cry of abuse from you, CoM. Not that I'm surprised, since you do this all the time. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- most of those disputing it are already involved in the dispute and just taking up their usual sides huh? ChildofMidnight was not involved in the dispute, Malik Shabazz was not involved in the dispute, DGG was not involved in the dispute etc etc. and which uninovoled admin exactly supported the block? At least get the facts straight. Loosmark (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Heimstern also neglects to mention that feedback was given at an ANI that the block was excessive and that Future Perfect refused discussion of the issue on his talk page and blanked a concerned editor's comment. Heimstern also misrepresents the clear consensus of uninvolved editors, and fails to notice that those supporting the block are mostly disputants or expressing support for a fellow admin in principle while disregarding the facts and issues involved (which is pretty frightening and abusive behavior).
- There's no need for this disruption to continue. Future Perfect needs to stop the disruption his abusive actions have caused and furthered. We all make mistakes, but when they're pointed out to us repeatedly by numerous uninvolved parties, we need to fix them. Failing to do so is abusive and this has gone on for quite some time now. Please fix this mess you've created before more incivility and drama by editors like Heimstern, who would rather defend you than seek out the facts, become involved in this. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Passive-aggressive, much? ChildofMidnight, do you have any idea what you're dealing with? No? I have spent years dealing with Misplaced Pages's nationalists. So has FPAS. So has Heimstern. We are all well-versed in their little ways of attacking each other; we know when a thread spills over from productive contributions into outright trolling. By and large, their vision of encyclopedia-building is very different from yours or mine. The standards applied are accordingly different. And I resent your implication that I have not bothered to review the facts - I have checked them in detail in the light of my experience in dealing with such folk. And I have found FPAS's actions to be proportionate. Moreschi (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- My good Child of Midnight and Loosmark, I did read the facts. It is you who are misrepresenting them, not I. Now please let the AE thread run its course and don't impose your own will this. That is all. Thank you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify: You act as though the ANI thread (I assume you mean this one had some consensus against a block. Nonsense. Perhaps we can say there was the absence of consensus due to lack of serious discussion, but your attempt to portray that as consensus against the block is utter rubbish. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- The ANI thread is pretty clear, not a single one of the editors who commented said that Jacurek needs to be blocked. Even Future Perfect said some warning against all involved. Then apparently he just changes his mind out of the blue and nukes with 1 month block. Loosmark (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Moreschi I found your post highly insulting, we are not nationalists nor we are "these folks". Show some respect when you talk about fellow editors. And frankly all this talk about admins who know what they are doing, the well-versed experts etc etc is a bit void. Btw if you have checked the facts in detail maybe you can explain why wasn't the guy who called the other editor "an idiot" blocked or at least warned. Loosmark (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
CoM, you must have noticed that I removed your last post in this matter here with the edit summary "unwelcome". Just in case I need to spell out in more detail what this means. It means that posts from you to my talk page in matters of other users are, and will be, exactly that: unwelcome. You are not among the users I appreciate feedback from in matters of my administrative work. Please post here only if it should concern editorial or administrative matters affecting you directly. And Loosmark, you have made your opinion known in, now, how many different forums? I really, really don't need to hear it another twenty times. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure you're aware FPaS that as an administrator your talk page is an appropriate venue for discussion. Your attitude and approach are abusive and disruptive. If you aren't willing to engage in discussion and to be civil and collegial with your fellow editors then you have no business being an admin. And in response to Moreschi I would simply point out that I have most certainly experienced the frustrations of dealing with nationalist and POV pushing editors. However, Jarucek's recent comments weren't any more disruptive than those I've seen from you on ANI and elsewhere. Again, I am simply requesting that Future Perfect at Sunrise respects the consensus among uninvolved editors and admins who have made it clear that his actions have been overly aggressive and improper. It's time to set things right so we can all return to more productive pursuits in the collaborative building of an encyclopedia instead of being sidetracked with FPaS's punitive and arrogant insistence on staying a course that has been shown to be unhelpful drama mongering. It's enough already. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- CoM, you've burst in here calling FPaS "abusive", "arrogant", and other such things. All very well, and I suppose you are entitled to express your opinion, but you can't subsequently attempt to assume a moral high ground about manners, and you certainly shouldn't expect to be taken seriously as a source of neutral counsel. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
the latest Dodona sock
. Then there is this other User:Licinas, who isn't much better. I would revert them myself, but have exceeded my limit on that article.--Athenean (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Cite error: The named reference
Neagoe1was invoked but never defined (see the help page).