User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thecomicmonkey (talk | contribs) at 22:07, 27 July 2012 (→RE:Karen Kondazian: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:07, 27 July 2012 by Thecomicmonkey (talk | contribs) (→RE:Karen Kondazian: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

Non-free images

My understanding is that if any free images are available we aren't to use non-free images just for the purposes of embellishment (especially infobox), but I seem to be reverted all too often on that, can you check Shammi Kapoor and Rajesh Khanna? We have quite a few free images at Commons and more at the source from where these were taken. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I added Kapoor's image back because his major career has been in his young age; atleast the one that he is recognized for. The infobox image should be thus suitable. Shouldn't it? I haven't done that yet on Khanna as his appearance isn't that drastically different. Was in fact waiting for SpacemanSpiff's comment on my talk page. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that before (your tp seems to be high traffic today), I normally stay away from NFCC unless it's obvious cases (like it appeared to me in these two), but as in both articles, at least two of the people who reverted are long-standing editors, I'd brought it to FPaS' attention. Eitherways, I don't know what's going on with DASHbot, it keeps reverting the unused DI tag for Shammi Kapoor even when at that point in time the image wasn't in use. cheers —SpacemanSpiff 13:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem! But then what is your opinion on this? This case would happen with almost all actors of 60s-70s who have drastically changed. Article on Sadhana Shivdasani uses a non-free image File:Sadhana in film, Ek Musafir Ek Hasina (1962).jpg although she is alive and hence free image of her can be found. Unavailability on Wiki is not a reason for using non-free image. The reason is that she has changed. See her latest image. Similar is the case with Shashi Kapoor. The current young-age image used will be deleted soon. Its probably a copyvio. Have asked Sreejithk2000 to look into this. After it's deletion we are left with his current images which are very different. What should be done then? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Now should we have Shashi Kapoor's young age non-free image or not? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't host also have any opinion on this? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

user shrike

i am trying to stay away from shrike... but see how is after me like a hound, . he should also try to de-escalate rather than follow me around. i am pretty sure he will begin an edit war pretty soon (that is his modus operandi). the last time he edited there was like weeks ago... suddenly he began editing again..today... on my post. that's not a coincidence. anyway, i'm not going to be part of that discussion anymore. could you please ask him to stop stalking me?-- altetendekrabbe 18:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Careful: you have no immunity from him, or others, on public noticeboards. If he uses your contribution list the same way I use those of many others, it's only natural he might see your posting there, and if it's related to a topic of interest to him, he has every right to comment. In this case, he made a matter-of-fact comment, and it was you who personalized the thing with accusations against him.

Incidentally, my personal opinion happens to be that you are probably also wrong about the question you raised. For a source to be reliable is not the same as for it to have no editorial bias. The Middle East Quarterly can be a serious academic, peer-reviewed publication, and as such meet our reliability criteria with flying colours, while still having a pronounced political bias. That's no contradiction, because academics out there have no ethical obligation to be "neutral" as we do here on WP. In fact, there is no such thing as a "neutral" source at all. Especially when it comes to topics like history and political science, we should always assume, about any source at all, that it may have some authorial slant, no matter how serious and academic it is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

i find it funny that he responds to my post only... today after not being active there a while. if you investigate his previous edits you'll see the pattern. if he continues with this behavior i'll take it to rfc/u. anyway, i'm not going to participate on that post anymore.-- altetendekrabbe 18:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad

You wrote:

In a speech delivered the following night, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking about Iran's conflicts with foreign "enemies", mentioned "heavier blows" that would be dealt by Iran against its oppressors. These words were interpreted by some Israeli media as a veiled reference to the Burgas attack and a "gloating" hint at Iranian involvement in it.

Unfortunately, this edit makes numerous mistakes. I would appreciate if you correct it.

"heavier blows that would be dealt by Iran" - please identify where he said this. If we look at the sources, for example this state ownedIranian one, he said "“The enemy deals a blow to the Iranian nations step by step; but, in return, it receives a stronger, heavier blow,” President Ahmadinejad said." Please don't try to distort sources or quotes.
"oppressors" - violates WP:NPOV by assuming it's oppressed. The proper thing would be to write "enemies" in quotes, since that's what he said.
"veiled reference" - please identify where you got the word "veiled" from.
"speaking about Iran's conflicts with foreign enemies" - please identify where you got this from, or remove it.
Removes valuable and important quotes to conform to a POV.

Please self-revert or edit appropriately. --Activism1234 21:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe my wording is within the bounds of responsible paraphrasing and, as such, true to the source, albeit less literally than the direct quotations. If you have quibbles with details of wording, feel free to tweak. However, what is non-negotiable is that we must not present his statements as if they were undoubtedly related to the Burgas attacks, as the previous version did. The previous version claimed that he "described the attacks" as an Iranian act. This is quite patently false, as he didn't in fact mention the attacks at all. Do not reinsert any wording of that kind.

I am giving you notice that I regard this as a WP:BLP issue: claiming that a living politician took responsibility for a terrorist act, as the previous version did, is a very serious matter, and falls under the rule that "exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence". As such, I reserve the right to use administrative means to prevent such claims from being reinserted in the article. Other than that I am totally open about the wording though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I will change the wording. I wanted to make sure it was fine with you so I am not sued for WP:1RR. The wording has been reinserted and reverted at different times by various editors. I simply noticed that it was your revert and edit so I brought it up with you. On the side, can you please identify with a diff where the previous edit said that it was an Iranian act? --Activism1234 21:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, the version immediately before my edit was saying that he described the attack as a "response" to Israeli "blows against Iran". Nothing unclear about that being a claim of "we did it" (if he had said it this way, which he didn't). By the way, I suggest you propose further rewordings on talk first, to take the heat out of the reverting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's clear though why that statement was made, as that was how an RS outlet reported it. The conflict some people are having is they are looking at the Iranian outlet as the true one, and ignoring anything an Israeli outlet said. What the Iranian outlet said is definitely true, but what the Israeli outlet quotes are further statements he made that were televised. At either rate, I don't want to get into this whole silly argument and edit warring over this now, maybe we can come back to it in a month or so... It's distracting from main point of article. --Activism1234 22:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Future. It was a good idea to remove it for the time being and wait and see what happens. I read a report (same outlet that reported on what he said) that claimed that Ahmadinejad was referring to sanctions, and was talking about the future tense, not Burgas and past tense. Thanks for being so keen and diligent on this, it really goes a long way. --Activism1234 04:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nasrallah

I appreciate your help with the Ahmadinejad quote.

I wanted to point out something else on the article, which seems like blatant vandalism, but to get your opinion on it.

Under Lebanon's reaction, it says "In a speech given to his supporters to mark the sixth anniversary of the Second Lebanon War, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah did not mention the attack."

It seems like vandalism. Who cares if he didn't mention the attack? Perhaps the United States Minister of Agriculture didn't mention the attack either, does that belong under the U.S. reaction??

The original line was "In a speech given to his supporters to mark the sixth anniversary of the Second Lebanon War, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah did not take responsibility for the attack, but said that Hezbollah is "chasing Israelis day and night" and promised a "big surprise" for Israel."

Thus, to me it appeared to be vandalism, by removing one part of the sentence to create an unnecessary sentence, or maybe take a jab at an editor. I feel that the original sentence is perfectly fine and maintains NPOV.

What are your thoughts on this? --Activism1234 22:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a similar problem. Both Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah are presumably people who use this kind of rhetoric about "enemies" and how much trouble they cause them more or less every day. So if they are now saying today pretty much the same thing they would have said a week ago or a year ago or next month, why are we bringing it up here in the context of this article at all? I guess the edit you are referring to is a rather clumsy attempt at fixing this, but the problem the 109.* IP saw seems pretty much the same issue I saw with the Ahmadinejad passage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's true they do say it often. The reason I believe it was brought up here is because it was said in a speech right after the attack, so it did have relevance, since it was a reaction. "Oh we didn't do it, but how do we react to this attack? Well..." However, unlike the Ahmadinejad one, it specifically mentioned that Nasrallah and Hezbollah did not take responsibility, both during the speech and before the speech. Otherwise, the sentence should be completely removed, but I sincerely feel the previous edit was fine. --Activism1234 22:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note - I've been working on this article shortly after it's inception, and have been very dedicated to it. You can tell that just by going to the page's history or my user contributions. I've constantly updated it with more info, added more countrie's reactions, etc. Thus, when I see possible vandalism or distortion like the above, in which part of a setnence is removed to just create an unnecessary sentence, I do everything I can to clear and fix it up and make the page better, which I believe is done best with working with cooperative editors. Thanks.--Activism1234 23:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Penyulap is disrupting the poll at Sgt Pepper

Now User talk:Penyulap is disrupting the straw poll at Sgt Pepper. What should I do, can you help with this please? ~ GabeMc 01:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There is now more disruption occuring there. Please take a look. ~ GabeMc 23:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Midan photo

I have replied as you instructed. And I'm telling you the same thing I said on the image's page. With the exception of the government news videos that were broadcast for propaganda purposes there were no other video footage or photos that clearly depicted the Midan street fighting in Damascus of the last few days which was highly notable and constant in the international media. EkoGraf (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Kallmann syndrome

Hello, I was just wondering why my two diagrams were removed from the Kallmann syndrome page. The diagrams are a representation of text above and below the diagrams. The diagrams were created for me by a medical illustrator over 15 years ago for a booklet I helped to write and I own the copyright to them. Did I label them incorrectly ? It was the first time I have tried to upload that sort of image but I thought I did it correctly as they are my own images. Please could you advise me on what I should have done. Thank you. Neilsmith38 (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for asking. I didn't actually understand from the description that these were your own work. If you own the copyrights to these, and you wish to see them used here, what you could do is to release them under a free license, by placing a license tag such as {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} on them. That contribution would indeed be greatly appreciated. Unfortunately, as long as they were described as "non-free", we'd have no way of keeping them, no matter if they are yours or somebody else's, because they fall under our replaceability rule for non-free works. (Incidentally, they were indeed also labelled incorrectly, because the graphics as such are not really the "topic of the article" – they are not the object of discussion, but merely an illustration to support the discussion of the article topic).

Please let me know if you would like to release the images under a free license; I'll then restore them so you can add the necessary tag to them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks at an article talk page

There are numerous personal attacks against me at the Sgt Pepper talk page. Other editors have tried to "hat" them but one or two users keep restoring them. It is my understanding that personal attacks can and should be removed from the talk page. Can you offer any advice in this regard, Thanks. ~ GabeMc 00:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

ankhmorpork again

user ankhmorpork is edit warring on dhimmi-page again. he is also gaming my 1-rr restriction.

User:Quione

Quione (talk · contribs) persists in disruptive talk page commentaries on Talk:Aspartame controversy and makes no effort at engaging other editors. While a few early edits were constructive, this has degenerated to disruption-only for more than a year. The last effort to engage on this page was ignored despite notification.Novangelis (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Bangladesh Liberation War

I myself is a freedom fighter and have books for references.The Operation Jackpot and Bangladesh Airforce activties are not written by me rather these are facts and truth written authors and writter with booh which have ISBN number.If some one changes my version must show valid reasons. Small grammer mistakes can not lead to change the trur version.It is obivious that readers should read the fact.It might go against a person or against a nation but the facts are to narrated as it happened.Any further change must be done with book or very acceptable references. I am sure one who reads this pages knows very well how and why it could be changed.Thats why I have reverted the Bangladesh Liberation war with the leagl changes I made.Before reverting just think it over the rules. Regards, --Frankfurt55 (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but you evidently have no understanding of just how poor your English writing is. These are not "small grammar mistakes"; it is just extremely poor quality material. It is also full of factually irrelevant detail, poorly structured and poorly focussed. If you continue pushing this sort of material into articles, it may become necessary to block you from editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Try to block me show you can block me.If you can not than I know you write more than what you are. Block me.Show me once that you can block me. Its not your job neither you are master of Misplaced Pages.OK By Now --Frankfurt55 (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

No one seems to have noticed this. Could you ask someone to give it some attention, or address it yourself?

Best regards, benjamil /_edits 14:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Open Government License files

Can you please undelete these probable Open Government License files you deleted?

Most of these did not have specific statements that they were under the Open Government License at their source (some may now), but are under the license nonetheless: Their copyright is owned by the crown, so unless they are by agencies with exemptions (delegations of authority) from the U.K. government's main licensing scheme, they are released by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

(These are all the images you deleted which were listed at PUF except some by the Ministry of Defense, which has a delegation of authority—I might ask you about these if matters become clearer, or about images not listed at PUF.)

I'm asking you since it looks like I'm supposed to first to get these undeleted per WP:Deletion review. A few of these may be on Commons (some are not), and faintly possible some are not under the OGL, but I can't tell without administrative privileges. —innotata 22:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I deleted these not so much for copyright reasons but because they were uploaded by an annoying serial sockpuppeter. If you want to take responsibility for them, copyright-wise, I have no problem undeleting them. Please give me a bit of time to go through them, I'll probably get round to doing them bit by bit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll take responsibility for them—assuming this doesn't mean much, even if I am mistaken. However, I expect all of these are fine from what I know (though some similarly clear images have been incorrectly deleted on Commons), those that aren't I'll ask you to delete. Thanks, —innotata 17:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Laufen Hut DYK

Hi FPAS. I thought you may like to know, if you don't already, that his article which you helped do a bit of translation for, is part of a triple DYK as lead hook right now on the main page. PumpkinSky talk 10:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright

Could you look at File:TwoBinaryClocks.jpg. While the flickr source marked 'Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)', the image, according to flickr description. appears to be a copy from here, thus non-free. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Good find, thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Pressburg, again.

Please have a look on the article's latest actions, Slovakian users (and some puppets) keeps reverting the edits.

Thank you Csendesmark (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

TDKR

It is protected I think. I don't think I am violating 3RR though as I'm just undoing the addition of unsourced original research to prevent the millions of article visitors being exposed to that incorrect stuff. Not much more I can do than that, discussing rational things with them isn't working so well. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

While I appreciate you suggestion that I pursue noticeboards in the future, that's all I've ever done. It generally results in being ignored, being told that it isn't worth an admins time, being told I'm using the wrong noticeboard, or occasionally, being blocked myself, resulting in half an hour and god knows how much in edits and energy wasted. All this over a very clear cut of disregard for consensus and edit warring by an editor who's been here less than a week and is concerned only with this one topic. It's stressful, frustrating, and after 5 years no longer worth it. I quit. --Williamsburgland (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

RE:Karen Kondazian

Hi, Can her head shot be used? Also, Is there any way to put the picture up or do they all have to be free use. Since Karen does own the pictures...I could ask if she wants to do this.

"Enemy suffering heavy blow from Iranian nation: Ahmadinejad". PressTV. 19 July 2012. Retrieved 19 July 2012.