User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 23

[Post from someone who has more money than I do]
Hey you deleted the pics i put up for the malibu page. F! you i freakin live in malibu and have alot more money than u do! You know it took me a long time to put those pics up and u deleted them. your lucky your not in Malibu or in the la area because i would take u out back and kick your ass! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryno123 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 24 February 2011
 * The above contains three true statements, two that I suppose may be true, and one that constitutes an illocutionary act whose happiness conditions are not fulfilled. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

File:CFNR.jpg
How is it replaceable? There is no FOP in the Philippines. Moray An Par (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm. First of all I must apologize because I actually overlooked the "contested" tag. But on consideration ..., this is one of those odd cases. I really wish we would decide to simply ignore the "no-freedom-of-panorama" laws in foreign countries. But from the feedback I got the other day, it seems we're stuck with it. However, the present photograph is basically infringing on two different copyrights at once: that of the architect (provided we can't simply ignore it), and that of the photographer, who is an unrelated third party. I'd have no problem with using a promotional picture released by the architect himself, or a self-taken picture by a Wikipedian where the photographic part is free, but a non-free image by a third party seems somehow not fair to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD nomination for English conjugation tables
Since you have edited the article or its talk page, I'd like to let you know that the article English conjugation tables has been nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/English conjugation tables. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * can i upload thirth map it was published in 1930. --Vinie007 18:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No way I could know, since I don't know the author and publication history. I don't see it was published in 1930. The page says it shows the state of around 1930; we can only guess it was probably created around that time; when it was published we have no idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What about this one its written on it. --Vinie007 18:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This one is said to be from "Franz Seiner (1922) Ergebnisse der Volkszählung in Albanien in dem von den österr.-ungar. Truppen 1916-1918 besetzten Gebiete (Schriften der Balkankommission, Linguistische Abteilung, vol. XIII). Wien, Leipzig." Seiner conveniently died in 1929 ), so it's both PD-US and PD-old-70. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Please accept my sincere apology one more time for wasting so much of your precious time in reading that tedious ANI initiated by me, and I am willing to take up any disciplinary measures hand down by admin without any complain. Since user Dungane has gone into 72 hour wiki break, what I would like to know is, would any admin going to make any comment or any decision regarding the max 300 words statement made by Dungane and me?  Arilang  talk  01:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Images
Hi, you deleted several pictures I uploaded to wikipedia. They are completely fine, and are screenshots. I have done my research and there is no restrictions, OR breaking of copyright violations. Can you explain why you have deleted these images, and what I have to do next time?

User:Alex0274. 25/05/11


 * These images are non-free (i.e. they are the property of the TV station you took them from), and they are replaceable, because they show living people who work in public settings, where others can also take photographs of them. It doesn't matter if such a free replacement photograph already exists; what counts is that it could be created. Sorry, but these will all have to go again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, i uploaded these two files on Rilindja Demokratike, i hope you're fine with that --Vinie007 21:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Should be okay under standard NFCC practice. But do you really need both? The logo is quite nicely visible on the title page already. Displaying it another time above it looks rather garish, and I actually found it a bit confusing. I had to look twice to see where the one image ended and the other began. Most newspaper articles seem to have only a single image in the infobox, usually a title page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Note

 * This is just a note to let you know that the deletion discussion of File:Doctors wife screenshot.jpg resulted in 'no consensus defaulting to keep' and that the closure is now being debated at WP:DRV. All the bestest, ╟─TreasuryTag► cabinet ─╢ 10:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

SPI
Because I know there's nothing you like more than a good SPI (except maybe deletion of copyvio images it seems of late). Athenean (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Edits made on article Jagannath and removal of images and threat of Blocking
One can not possibly digest that you have labeled the edits as disruptive editing. Don't attempt to undo things which are beyond your comprehension and grasp. And regarding your threat of blocking "If you continue to upload media files with false or lacking copyright and source information, you may be blocked from editing", do keep that to yourself. And you may go ahead with that if you please. This user has been contributing sincerely to wikipedia since its inception. And you don't have the right to act as THE WIKIPEDIA!! If you want to improve WIKIPEDIA, go ahead, try making some contributions. But don't abuse your powers to 'intimidate' users who make real contributions. '''And, of course, please, do refrain from issuing of threats and strong-arm, big-brotherly behavior. You may not be that large. Your threat was in a bad taste. This user admonishes you to take that back.''' -- soft dynamite (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Question
Could I upload this picture onder some i don't know license it's from the offical parlament site and used for information perpose --Vinie007 10:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. There isn't such a thing as "some i don't know license". This image is copyrighted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's named other --Vinie007 10:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's called the "I-found-it-on-the-web-somewhere-and-just-want-to-use-it-so-badly" license. The correct tag for it is the I-want-to-be-blocked-for-copyright-violations template. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was joking :P, don't take me always to serious --Vinie007 10:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I found a big gallery of at the Prime ministers site, could we maybe do a request for realising these into PB domain, and how could that be done? --Vinie007 10:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Try the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Good luck. Sometimes these politicians are vain enough they'll actually give you such a permission. One guy once managed to persuade even the Kremlin's public relations office. Since then, we've had the free choice of a dozen free images of Vladimir Putin for every day of the year. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Asking is not the problem i will use my contacts, but getting a yes is a bit harder i think --Vinie007 10:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I Mailed his secretary and himself, lets hope for the best :D --Vinie007 10:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Potential Lead Images for the Article about the South Park Episode "T.M.I."
Because there currently appears to be no real consensus on which snapshots are suitable for the lead image of the article "T.M.I.", I have recently expanded the "Non Free Use Rationale" boxes for most of the png. format images that I uploaded onto Wikipedia. If you want to take a closer look at the more detailed arguments as to why I feel that most of these images are not a violation of WP:NFCC, just read my post on the section of the "Files for Deletion" page that is devoted to this controversy. --Kaiser Taylor (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm. As long as you are still framing the issue in terms of "which snapshots are suitable" rather than "whether any snapshots are suitable", I still doubt we can reach any understanding about this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I fully understand that some editors & administrators (such as you, apparently) may feel very strongly that none of these snapshots are appropriate for usage on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I also realize that due to my poor choice of words, I didn't really make this point especially clear in my preceeding post; so I can't really blame you for this misunderstanding. As far as your suggestion regarding these images is concerned, unless another contributor voices their support for another snapshot within the next 36 hours, I will personally select the png. format screenshot titled Cartman and the Pissed Off and Angry Party (since this seems to be the only picture that has recieved any sort of approval from an administrator) for the article "T.M.I."'s lead image and I will then promptly delete all the other files that I uploaded onto Wikipedia. Then, if you insist, we can continue this debate over that specific image file. --Kaiser Taylor (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted Deletion of [[File:Maausi Maa Temple.jpg]] Image
It seems you have deleted the image file with extreme zeal and promptness. Have you gone through the Wikipedia copyright policies before doing that?

You have inflicted vandalism on the image by not following the [|F9] criteria, where, as per policy, Non-blatant copyright infringements are to be discussed at |Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files after listing for 14 days before processing.

What made you act so fast? Explain.

This user discerns the following failures on your adminship:


 * 1) "Bad faith" adminship
 * 2) Breach of basic policies (edit warring)
 * 3) Repeated/consistent poor judgment

It is crystal clear that You have taken a personal and biased approach. How can you delete the image by short-circuiting the time period allowed as per WP?

Put an end to this conceited, negative approach.

Cant understand how biased users like you make it up to the admin category in wikipedia.

Also go through the ISCON website and try to make out what sort of a site is that and whether the content there is copyrighted or not.

You have mentioned that this user has "again gave a false license claim". How did you know that the claim is false? Don't you know the difference between false and incorrect? Did you check with the uploader before deleting?

Now I have started doubting your ability to understand broad copyright issues, other than a 'bot'like, repetitive deletion behavior.

And you have mentioned ..it wouldn't be sufficient for us..Woh...Don't elevate yourself above than a one of the millions of user and don't self-congratulate yourself for the wiki. Your contributions may be insignificant in comparison to what other users have made.

soft dynamite (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you not read the image page immediately after you uploaded that image? It told you in big red letters: any file marked as "licensed for educational or non-commercial use only" automatically gets deleted, immediately. See WP:CSD#F3. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe with comments like: Cant understand how biased users like you make it up to the admin category in wikipedia. and Now I have started doubting your ability to understand broad copyright issues, other than a 'bot'like, repetitive deletion behavior. you may need to refresh on the personal comments policy. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  17:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Just do whatever it think it is necesary
Hi, You can do whatever you think it is necessary, removing images etc., as long as you don't lock me out from Wikipedia for accusations of vandals. I only want to make contribution.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Image problem
Issue raied at. An IP claims to be the owner of File:TonkPile.jpg, which another editor uploaded and claimed as theirs. What is the best way to proceed with this? Should we tell the IP how to contact the WMF to request a takedown, or nominate the image for deletion as a claimed copyvio? Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Flickr
Hi Sun, i got the permission to use this picture and i got this reaction: "Hi Vincent, Thank you for seeking me out, and for requesting the use of my image for this Wikipedia article. Yes, I am very familiar with Wikipedia, and so I do not see this as a problem. So, to be clear, you have my permission to use (http://www.flickr.com/photos/northfoto/3677381459 to support the following article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_rebellion_in_Albania This agreement will not allow for any other use of the photo without my express, written permission. Best, Mark Milstein"


 * Could i now upload it? --Vinie007 10:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I'm afraid not. It's a restrictive permission "for Wikipedia only". We only accept free licenses that allow free re-use by others for any purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What about the OTR pending mail service --Vinie007 11:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or adding a non free license --Vinie007 11:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there's no non-free use justification here. And what would you want to do with OTRS? If this is the permission the author has given you, what more can you do? You can of course try to beg him once more and persuade him to give you a more liberal license, but that might come across as rather impolite. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What about the same licence as this picture --Vinie007 20:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's a very bad example of fair use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention a bad filename. I mean, "policemans"? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

E-mail
Just sent you an e-mail. Please let me know if you read it. --Damiens .rf 09:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Zani Caushi
Could this deleted page be userfied to my account? It's for the Gang of Çole. --Vinie007 13:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid since it's an unsourced biography of a living person, with some very hard statements about criminal activity, I'd not be willing to do that (even though those statement may of course well be correct). In any case, you ought to ask the deleting admin first. Apparently it was Ronhjones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sampi
Aren't you going to get it to FAC? I think the article stands a good chance at it. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack?
Throughout my remarks in the discussion about User:Damiens.rf, I have striven to avoid accusing any individual editor of anything, and have specifically remarked that I thought the user was acting in good faith, and has been given too much support by some sections of the community to see that he was acting disruptively.

It remains my impression that we're dealing a problem that's come about because policy has been influenced too strongly by the "free content only" contingent, and that the result has been, as I said, "asshattery" that the true believers have a hard time perceiving or acknowledging. This has been done with good intentions by all involved, but the result is regrettable.

Certainly your behavior in the controversy is doing nothing to disconfirm that impression. My opinion on the subject seems to annoy you so much that you don't see that I have personally attacked no one. At any rate, if I am guilty of a personal attack, an administrator's noticeboard is either the worst or the best place to make one. If I'm out of bounds, someone neutral will probably tell me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You have not just insulted any individual editor "personally", you have insulted the whole group of people you disagree with. Which is not a jot better. Yes, I personally feel insulted, because the claim that I have been engaging in "asshattery" logically entails I must be an asshat. So, apologise, right now, or I will continue to press for you to be excluded from that thread, if necessary through a block.


 * By the way, while you were clearly including me in the group of editors you were insulting, you were actually wrong insofar as I am not even in favour of a "free content only" policy. But that's just as an aside. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

History of NFC policy
Nice job on the history. Very good first draft. A very useful resource, long overdue. Jheald (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Nicely done! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Great work. But it somewhat makes you look old! :) --damiens.rf  14:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Footyarticlecreator
Just an FYI, this user appears to be the same as and (I think). --Bongwarrior (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested elaboration
Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise, You recently deleted two of my (username: zahj10) articles: Article Brian McAfee and the article The McAfee. I was hoping that you would be willing to elaborate as to why you made these decisions. You claimed that the article titled 'Brian McAfee' did not contain an explanation of the subject's significance, yet I feel that the article provided several examples of how the subject did indeed accomplish many achievements that were supported by ample legitimate sources. Your reason for deleting the article titled 'The McAfee' was "made up in school one day". I feel that you have no evidence or reason to believe this, and it is also not the case. However, I can understand this article may be deleted, as it is not widely popular at the moment and still only known within the local region. I would still benefit if you would be willing to give an acceptable, undisputed reason for deleting the article. Thank you. Zahj10 (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * An 18-year-old kid who plays baseball for his high school team and was mentioned a couple times in local newspapers? With "references" in the article about his hobbies and friendships that are in fact just "interviews" of his buddies? You must be kidding. I couldn't quite make up my mind whether I should treat your editing as just juvenile silliness or as vandalism; please don't make me think too hard about that again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to begin by saying that I consider your sarcasm in the previous response highly unprofessional for someone who is supposed to remain unbiased as an editor. I would appreciate if you would refrain from continuing with such a tone. You consider my references to be inadequate, claiming that I only interviewed his "buddies". Again, your presumptions are false due to having no evidence to back them. I did not interview his "buddies", as you say, I interviewed his teachers and principle, who are well respected state-wide. I have correctly-formatted transcripts of these interviews should you desire to prove their credibility. Mr. McAfee was also not only "mentioned" in local newspapers, often being dedicated entire, highly credible articles that are featured in well respected papers such as the Seattle Times. I would like you to take another unbiased look at the article, and I ask once again for legitimate reasons sanctioned by Wikipedia policies to delete an article about a subject who has nationally recognized achievements. Thank you. Zahj10 (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Self-conducted interviews are worthless in any case, no matter whether it's his buddies or his teachers. You need reliable published sources. And for notability, I advise you to consult general notability guidelines for biographies, as well as the specific one for baseball. A one-sentence laudation in a local newspaper, or general coverage of the performance of his team in local media, don't qualify. BTW, before we continue this discussion, since you show such a heightened interest in this person and have apparently researched personally in his environment, I must ask you to please clarify in what personal relationship you stand with the subject, and please have a read of WP:COI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Your revert of my change in Macedonia
Hi Futureperfect, I understand your reason for reverting me. However, of all the country articles I've visited, and it's many, they all use "state" with the link sovereign state. "Country" is not technically the right term to refer to the political entities. See country. It's a geographic region. And I believe Wikipedia's policy/article standard on these are to refer to the political State (polity), rather than the geographic region. (Cross-reference Aruba, which is a "country" of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Also your point about pedantic, isn't Wikipedia for learning and teaching? If the reader doesn't understand the term, they can just click state to understand it. My view is that "country" is basically a misuse of the term to refer to the political entity. Make sense? I normally would not actually leave the word "country" but just replace it. If you don't have a problem with it, I plan to change it back with country removed. That's probably better. Mistakefinder (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais
Hello FPS. I am very disapointed about your decition on me which I find extremely precipitated and certainly missleading, but on the other hand I am glad finally an admin got involved into this. I would realy like to clarify some doubts and explain some situations related to those articles. Would you be willing to spare me a bit of your time over this issue? I would really appreciate it. FkpCascais (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn´t even knew this subject was at ANI, nobody warned me about it until just now. How inconvenient for me. You decided to rely on the words of a highly subjective editor involved in dispute against me, without even hearing my reasons. FkpCascais (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, before all, please take this into account: the issue on discussion there is currently under mediation (Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic, which includes Chetniks and all related to them in WWII). It all started because Direktors edits were being disputed (all this more than a year back). We found as solution going into mediation, however Direktor didn´t wanted to sign the petition for months (while edit warred everyone to keep his version on the articles, that are still there). When he finally signed, we discussed the issue for much time, and some aspects begin to be clear, and some neutral conclusions were made. Direktor refuses to accept them, and as he understood that his POV on the subject was not going to be accepted, he basically blackmailed everyone and ended up leaving the mediation. I am paricipant of the mediation. In the meantime, Direktor started now pushing the same POV trough the articles, he openly shows total disregard towards the mediation (even "campaining against it (!), and when challenged he tries opening parallel discussions that he clearly doesn´t discuss, but rather he makes his endless "allways the same" speach of the kind "this is the trouth accept it". He choosed two authors and claims his edits are "sourced" however, the entire mediation begin because there are also contradicting sources, and all aspects must be taken into account under WP:UNDUE. I have sources, he has sources, however I am willing to wait to the balanced outcome of the mediation, while direktor chooses the sources he likes (exagerates and even manipulates many, as I already found out several ocasions) and totaly ignores the ones he dislikes. This is my position on this matter: . How can I be the one wrong? FkpCascais (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What is all this about? You received a very light sanction for persistent edit-warring (against several users) to remove a long-standing, related image from the article, in spite of clear opposition, and without any semblance of a talkpage consensus. The only justification you posted is that image is somehow the "same" as  image and that "clearly" therefore one of those two should be removed, to me that simply makes no sense at all. This "list of grievances", against me, admins, and the world has no connection to the actual issue.

The mediation, in its duration of over 16 months(!) has failed to resolve a single solitary issue. It is clearly non-functioning, and is now little more than an excuse to avoid posting sourced information into the article. More importantly, its scope concerns the Draža Mihailović article and NOT the Yugoslav Front article or the Chetniks in General. We can easily modify the text once you finally name and/or post these alleged "contradicting sources" you continously talk about. I asked you at least two dozen times to present your sources - to no avail. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I will wait for FPS to ask me any doubts that he may have. I made my view clear already to you. I hope FPS sees the discussion about pictures and I am obviously offering myself for any clarifications. Discussing with you without supervision is completely useless. FkpCascais (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, what does all this have to do with WP:3RR? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You are dobleing one revert (the one at 20h). It was 2 different edits: 1 about image, another about changing the place of the article link, I just used the edit summary "rv" for both... check articles edit history and you´ll see. 2 rv of mine have no other user edits in between, so it is 1 rv. Instead of making a preview, I made 3 sequencial edits in which I used in 2 of them a RV edit summary, but in fact it is only 1 edit.


 * About the pictures issue, how is that I assumed good-faith and allowed User:Kebeta to remove and replace pictures portraying negatively a Croatian movement, thus giving balance to them, but you find perfectly neutral to have 2 pictures of Chetniks in the article in both cases posing with Axis forces? How is that neutral? I even asked you to "choose one out". I removed the picture that you provocatively and purpously added in the beggining of the Resistance chapter thus giving the intentional negative perception to the readers. You are actually being disruptive for insisting on thi.! My removal was announced at talk page, and accepted. No one reverted it for days. However, for some strange reason you find perfectly fair to restore the situation of having a resistance movement portreyed in the article with 2 pictures, both posing with Axis troops... and obviously the other editors, also favouring your POV on this subject, then decide to let me be edit warred saying the provocative unsensible sentence of "I din't realize one image will make such a mess" (knowing perfectly well the situation) and basically ganging me up and enjoying it. Seems you´re all just provoking me and edit warring me in group and then you just waited to report me (without reason) and without even me having the possibility to defend myself, punishing me, basically totaly impossibilitating my interventions on those articles for near future (leaving you free highway to push all your POV already prooved wrong at mediation!). I will do all the necesary to show the trouth about what happend, and I will clarify every doubt left.


 * Just for FPS to see things in simple way, this was one of the Direktors edits I reverted: . He purpously chaged the place for article links at begining of section so the article Chetniks would not be under "Resistance". This is a perfect exemple of numerous minor but very propagandistic and disruptive edits that DIREKTOR (with other editors support) does intentionally to deny resistance efforts and nazify the movement. This is really a very serious issue, and that is why is under mediation. It is clear POV pushing, but I am the one punished for reverting it and placing it right again. FkpCascais (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * revert 4 02:49, 2 June 2011 (Rv, image situation is clear. About source, I don´t see where that is said. Rv to Timbouctou version.)
 * revert 3 20:07, 1 June 2011 (Rv vandalism and purpose missplacing edit with intention of deniying resistance rights to Chetnik movement. This was rightfully here.)
 * revert 2 20:03, 1 June 2011 (Undid revision 432008958 by DIREKTOR (talk) Choose one out! You may just adore having them posing together, but one picture is enough. Stop your insulting POV!);
 * revert 1 07:04, 1 June 2011 (Undid revision 431950596 by DIREKTOR (talk) 2 eaqual pictures want stay. Choose one out!)
 * Editing seperately actually depicts more accurately the number of reverts than WP:gaming the system and being careful to include all edit wars in one post. In the end "which is worse" is not really significant: there is certainly no "clause" in WP:3RR that allows you to make more than three reverts so long as they are all done in succession (see 3RR exemptions). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 02:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

FPS, while direktor was bussy "asking help", he was actually doing several tendentious edits on several related articles, see here, here, here (this one is incredible, because it is exactly why mediation started)... If you see his recent edit history it all goes basically around this issue, where I am his major obstacle to push his edits undiscussed! This articles shouldn´t even be edited (ask the mediator User:Sunray) and specially not exactly about the mediated issue (!) All his edits should be reverted, and if he wishes he should return to the mediaion where this matter is properly adressed, but instead he abandoned the mediation, waited a few months, and now started heavily editing precisely the mediated issue, showing open disregard towards the mediation! This is really serious matter and disruption. FkpCascais (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, I shall now slowly back away from this nonsense.. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 08:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * After chasing me to every single talk page, yes, perhaps you should... ( Please don´t post anymore comments anywhere, at least I wan´t until I get a responce, and I wan´t respond to you anymore, so be cool ) FkpCascais (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier. I have not followed the whole preceding story about that mediation, but on reviewing the recent edits on the Yugoslav Front page again, I stand by my assessment that you were edit-warring disruptively and displaying an overall unconstructive "battleground" approach to the situation. I therefore think the sanction is appropriate and useful. I regret you weren't notified of the AN(I) thread in time, but you were certainly warned correctly, and it has always been my position that ARBMAC sanctions work best when they are handed out swiftly, without being first discussed to death in situations like ANI or AE. As for Direktor, his editing will of course also remain under scrutiny, and he will be well advised not to try and reap undue profits from your restriction by out-reverting you regularly. I'll take a brief look at the mediation page now, but from the edits you linked to above, it does appear at first sight that Direktor's edits are well sourced and pertinent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not a stranger to the concept of fair play, FPS, I have not reverted FkpCascais once since his restriction. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

´
 * FPS, DIREKTORS edits are disputed and he is being disruptive because he knows that those same edits are the reason why the mediation started and is taking place. He has not reverted me since then because I have been restraining myself to edit the article without a consensus on the issue, and direktor (despite having a source) is not right because this sort of edits must be under WP:UNDUE, so it is not a question os sources, because I have mine too, it is a question of consesnsus and restraining to edit mediation related issues. You have acted missinformed and without knolledge on the history of the dispute. I am asking you to provide me evidence of my disruption (be precise) so the situation can become more clear and be rectified. Btw, in the meantime I am being stalked by direktor to every single talk page. FkpCascais (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And for everyones informtion this was the reason of my "previous warning", a report I made and that resulted in another user block, not any disruption on my side. FkpCascais (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

?
I would appreciate a feedback. I accept your apologies for the lack of notification at report where you took action against me, however for me to challenge your decition I need to discuss it with you first. FkpCascais (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I apologise, I didn´t intended to sound agressive, and it is useless to remove it now, however I do find insensitive that you have not took a minute to discuss this with me~while you had been in the meantime present on WP. I am able to recognise my mistakes, that is not the problem, however here the case is far from being as simple as that, and there are several reasons why I find that your decition was not the most apropriate one. I already failed to have a chance of disputing the acusations (when it was most important), and I do somehow feel that you are further deniying me that oportunity. FkpCascais (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, seems that direktor made at least 4 reverts in less than 24 hours in the same edit war. The problem is that he claims he "edited" twice, but in reallity he reverts the accepted version on the article that was there when the discussion initiated, and he insisted in adding the "sourced edit" (prior to the discussion end) and that is the exact edit that was the reason of the mediation to start (lead presentation of Chetnik movement). That would be 5 reverts in less than 24 hours (6 in 27 hours), but even if we consider the first one he claims as edit, the second time he insisted on that, is actually a revert, making 4 reverts in less than 24 hours (he edited, he was reverted, he fails to discuss by changes a few words and source gaming the system). I am presenting you this edits of his in "reverting aspect", not mentioning to you the fact that it was agreed at the mediation that those precise edits were not suposed to be done until the mediation on that is not concluded. I really wanted to defend myself first before bringing this into your attention, but as time go by and I fail to get a chance to have an oportunity to clarify this with you, I´m bringing this in advance. FkpCascais (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are the reverts:
 * Revert 1 (1/6 5:22) "Rv non-consensus removal of relevant image" (no one, but him, objected)
 * Revert 2 (1/6 14:52) "Rv non-consensus removal of content. The pictures you are talking about are not "equal" in any way, shape, or form" (Chetniks have 2 pics in the article, both "posing with Axis forces", sounds quite equal.
 * Revert 3 (1/6 23:43) "Adding sourced information, sources cited. No source(s) presented in contradiction" But DIREKTOR fails to say that this edit is exactly what is being under mediation, and it is done without even concluding the discussion on the talk page. "No sources presented in contradiction" must be a bad joke, because if things were that simple the case certainly wouldn´t been debated for more than a year at the mediation, and there we already acknolledged that this kind of simplifications are wrong. That is probably why he give up the mediation, I supose.
 * Revert 4 (2/6 00:24) "Rv vandalism. POV no-consensus removal of long-standing, related image" Image case.
 * Revert 5 and 6 (2/6 07:33) "All right, used the exact same words as the source, and added another source (using the exact same words), complete with relevant quotes.)" double revert including reverting image back, and reverting lead change with discussion still ongoing in both, mediation and talk page.
 * The problematic reverts that should not be done without mediation consensus are the 3 and 5. FkpCascais (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I answered you yesterday. And I still stand by my assessment. You are making a lot of the fact that D.'s edits were "disputed", but looking over the discussions I am still getting the impression that the "dispute" is just between proper sources on the one side, and a lot of "I don't like it" noise on the other. Frankly, I can see very little merit in your dispute. You shouldn't be using "lack of consensus" as a tool to obstruct edits merely because you don't like them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, seems that you are completely unfamilirised with the dispute, specially regarding "me making noise" total nonsence ( That issue is under mediation, there is a list of sources to use in WP:UNDUE which are on mediation, if you are unaware of it, and you refuse to listen, there is something wrong in your aproach ). Will you please be kind to provide me the exact venue where I should contest your decition? And soon please. FkpCascais (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) The standard venue for that is an appeal at WP:AE; there are instructions for it on the top of that page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: Could you just also be kind and tell me your excuse for not sanctioning the other user who reverted beyond 3RR limit? And I supose it is unusefull to ask you again to be precise about the edits of mine that lead you to make your conclusions that you expresed regarding my conduct, I will ask you pleae to do it. FkpCascais (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems not. You are aware that I don´t even know what the sanction means and I also meant that when I asked you (several times already) if you could spare me some time to clarify some issues? But seems that for some reason you find that I don´t deserve having some rights. OK... anyway, I (also) left a comment at the ANI report itself where you also didn´t, should I say found "time" or "interess", to respond me. The report had obviously falled out of radar but it is still open. Should I wait that someone closes it first? FkpCascais (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

ATF Letters
What do you mean by "published"? MoonOwl2010 (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * These letters were produced by a government official and sent to a private citizen. That is not publication. The private citizen (you?) evidently published them in some way, or we wouldn't be seeing them now, but that act of self-publishing doesn't constitute a reliable source. What you'd need is a reliable source, e.g. a book by a respected academic author, who took these documents, made some comments on them, and published them together with his interpretation of what their significance is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Which blocked user created "Mohammad Khatam" and "Fatemeh Pahlavi"?
Hi Fut.Perf.☼! All ready to jump back in and continue wikifying these articles, and... they're gone. Tho I suspected there may have been some political intrigue in the background, they looked OK to me. The again, I have a long history of over-assumption of good faith. What was the go with these articles? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * They were created by, a sockpuppet of . I didn't delete them because of any particular content problem, but simply based on WP:CSD ("creation of a banned or blocked user"). This sockpuppeter has been extremely stubborn, and I think it is important to give as much discouragement from further socking attempts as possible to him, by letting as few of his edits as possible survive each time. Sorry if this made you waste some of your effort in cleaning the articles up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy reply. Completely understand - If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well/It were done quickly, "oxygen of publicity", WP:DENY and all that.  I'd ask for userfication of the articles, but I already have far too many WP:KITTENS in need of attention! Thanks again, ---Shirt58 (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible MfD
Hi. I believe that one of Wikid77's user subpages, User:Wikid77/Evidence MK, would merit nomination WP:MfD, since it seems to represent a textbook case of WP:STALEDRAFT (in so far as it is an archive of disputed content, which has not been edited in more than 12 months). I had no idea that this existed until recently, but it seems to violate user page guidelines in more than one area. If Wikid77 wishes to respond to the nomination, either myself or others could transfer his comments to the MfD discussion manually (the user is currently blocked). However, in addition, since the conditions of his topic ban apply to this page, a one-off exemption would need to be made so that Wikid77 could participate. Before I nominate the page, may I confirm that there would be no violation of restrictions should Wikid77 decide to join the discussion? It is all related to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Many thanks. Super Mario Man  17:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Permission
As a supporting evidence, I want to forward NYB your email conversation with another administrator you accidentally sent to me back in 2009. Hope you remember which one. Taking under consideration that you have read my private emails in the past and that you consider yourself a good administrator I hope you will not have anything against that. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you do not have my permission to do so (I couldn't give you this permission even if I wanted to, because it wasn't my mail in the first place). You may mention the incident and summarize its contents on-wiki – if you do the honourable thing and add to it the fact that the administrator in question subsequently fully retracted his charge and apologized for making it. If the arbitrators want more info, I will send them the details myself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "fully retracted his charge and apologized for making it" - sorry but he did not, at least I don't have that in my records. You were clearly criticized and your block imposed on me was shorten . Do you honestly think FP that all your actions against me were %100 fair and unbiased ? Do you ?? I don't think so.. you know what you where doing blocking me for "harassment" of Varsovian or blocking me for "edit war" while COMPLETELY  ignoring other side I was edit warring with. Do yo remember the latest with Dr. Dan and company and how this ended up? I'm sure you do. No I don't think your restrictions should be lifted because from my perspective you should not be an administrator in the first place. I saw you being very biased on may occasions not only to me but to other people.--Jacurek (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, of course you don't have the retraction in your records. It happened after I accidentally sent you the mail. But it happened, I told you so at the time, and I expect that if you choose to bring it up, you will mention that. Of course S. can be asked to confirm. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Riaz & Poppy.jpg listed for deletion
Hi, I'm really sorry for that uploaded the subjected image, i don't know that is copyright violation. so please i will want your mercy for any copyright violation of previous. However, I have seen the File:Riya Calendar.jpg it already been used Riya Sen article. It was accept by Wikimedia Commons but my content is deletable ?. I will need upload of some images as use for Riaz article. please help me anyway. Thank you. -- S M Hemayet ( talk ) 14:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Future Perfect, I think you are wright, I don't know good English, it may be grammar style, cohesion, tone or spelling problem. I hope shortly overcome of the situation. So, i have request to you please remove the tag of Riaz articles. I can sure that the problem not be permanently. With Thanks -- S M Hemayet ( talk ) 10:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no. There are very serious problems with this article. The English grammar is dreadful. Much of it is unsourced. I have suspicions about the notability of this actor. You have claimed he got numerous awards, but I cannot find his name in several of the sources you cite. All the articles about the films he played in were also written by you, and have the same problems. If this actor really is as notable and popular as you claim he is, I find it very strange that no other Wikipedia editor ever took an interest in writing about him or any of his films before you turned up. Here's the deal: you go and find reliable sources for every single factual claim in each of the articles (about the actor and his films). If not, I will reduce it to a short but grammatically correct "stub" article soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion discussion
Some more information has come to light at that about an Ernest Withers image. Dropping off a note in case you missed that. Do you think that has made things any clearer? Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI thread disrupted - again
I am sick and tired of legitimate threads being disrupted and eventually ignored because User:FkpCascais "joins the fray" and clogs the discussion with meaningless jabber. I'd like to please ask you to please read through this and see if there's any real justification for Sunray removing this paragraph (the second paragraph in the article lead, here, the sources are there, word for word) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Upload
Can i upload this, it's with publicataion date (+70 years) --Vinie007 14:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a US publication, which doesn't go by a 70-years rule (and in any case, in most European countries, it's 70 years after death of author, not 70 years after creation). In the US, with things from this time period, it depends on whether the copyright was renewed and registered sometime during the 1960s. There's a database somewhere where you can look it up. Some people on Copyright questions might remember more details about which Time Magazine issues are copyrighted and which aren't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Historiographer (again)
Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You are familiar with the disruption by on Korea-related articles, as you blocked him for edit-warring on Joseon Dynasty as a "repeat offender". Well, he's at it again, edit-warring after his block both on the article and on its talk page, despite repeated warnings, while just managing to avoid breaking 3RR. I wrote a little chronicle of the affair on User:Rjanag's talk page, as he is the admin who had been warning Historiographer ever since his latest block about his edit warring. However, Rjanag seems to be reluctant to take action on this case, since Historiographer's friends are as an involved admin. Can you, as an uninvolved but familiar administrator in this case, review the behavior of and determine an appropriate course of action? Both the article and the talk page of Joseon Dynasty have been in stalemate for months in no small part because of the conduct of this user, and because of the complexities of this case, multiple users seeking respite have been turned away from both and. You noted in your block of Historiographer that "Korea-related conflicts of this sort are a perennial hotspot and should be treated as a zero-tolerance area when it comes to edit warring". Therefore, I don't think that passing Historiographer around to various noticeboards to find the proper jurisdiction would be a very fruitful endeavor. If you have any unique insight on the Historiographer saga, or are willing to make this difficult block, please let me know. Thanks. Quigley (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Samuel J. Meisels.jpg
Greetings! I saw you expressed concern earlier today regarding the above-referenced image, intended for use in the article on Samuel J. Meisels. I have been working with the author of the article (and uploader of that image) to get the article up-to-speed, having consulted with him through the AFC process, etc. Regardless, my question is simple. Am I correct in advising the author that the easiest way to get a photo of Dr. Meisels included is to have the author take the photo himself, making it his own work? The author apparently works with Dr. Meisels. I am admittedly entirely inexperienced when it comes to managing files, copyright, etc., on Wikipedia, so while I want to help the article author out I don't want to give them inaccurate counsel. Best, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 00:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Cofuz channel incident
Hi, can you upload this: this movie, its under free license, but if i upload it only sounds works, thanks! --Vinie007 04:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case: Maids' demo image
Hi Future Perfect (hell of a user name :-) )

I see that you speedily deleted my upload of an image of the maid's demonstration at DSK's arraignment and indeed I see at #7 WP:NFC that there doesn't seem to be any future for the image. It's got to be the image that's discussed, not the event the image is depicting. That's right isn't it?

Any future at all for a non-free image here?

Appreciate a quick remark here if you have time. I'll look back. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you found the correct rule there. I personally don't really see how a non-free image could be used here. Even if you found one that wasn't from a commercial agency and thus the infringement on commercial interests wouldn't be so problematic (e.g. a photo taken and published by the demonstrators themselves on the website of their non-profit organization), we'd still be stuck with WP:NFCC. A crowd of hotel maids protesting in front of a court building is just something that is not in much need of visual illustration to be understood. Anybody can imagine for themselves what such a crowd looks like. The fact that they protested can quite adequately be covered in the article without any illustration. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're quite right. New to the game here and I hadn't noticed #8. I think I'll give up on the image. A momentary enthusiasm there. Thank you for your time. FightingMac (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Human Rights Impact Assessment
Header added by Danger (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fut.Perf. ☼, A Methodology For Human Rights Impact document is not copyrighted -- I know this, I wrote it. Why was the whole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Impact_Assessment Wikipedia page deleted? Please reinstate. User talk:ksalcito 4:06 PM, 6 June 2011 (MST)
 * See also: WP:EAR. Danger (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Blue Dress Park
"Druecke is primarily a conceptual artist" ... "The artwork, consists of a readymade found site and intermittent activating events" (emph added) ... "Druecke self-initiated Blue Dress Park by organizing a christening with champagne and chamber music".

I'm not a great one for conceptual art, but it seems to me that in this hocus-pocus world the barbecue is being cast as one of the "initiating events".

The photo then would show what the artwork consisted of (as well as, presumably, being the realised form of the conceptual work that is available for purchase). If that was the case it might be worth keeping.

So worth letting the FFD run its course? Jheald (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it's still not a "work" of art in the sense of the non-free 3D art tag, which was used on it. The objects in the photograph weren't statues or something; they were people. It was a "performance", at best, but not a "work". You can't copyright a person. I also don't think you can copyright the way a group of people stand around a barbecue. They did so randomly; it wasn't as if the artist directed them to stand in a particular way, so he didn't actually "create" the scene in any meaningful sense. The artist presumably can't even claim copyright for the whole alleged "work" around it, because he didn't create that either – it was, as the article claims, "found art". The wording of the article first threw me off a bit and I was inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt and follow the claim that it was a "work" at first, but then I looked up the sources. The only source about the barbecue event actually doesn't talk about the event as an artwork, "conceptual" or "public" or whatever; it talks about it simply as a publicity event. It was a party staged in a derelict square somewhere. Nothing else. In fact, the source isn't talking about the "Blue Dress Park" itself as a work of art either. It is simply an urban space somewhere. The whole idea that it is an artwork, "found" or "public" or "conceptual" or "intervention" or whatever, seems to be merely the article's OR. – Well, I'm of course willing to re-open the thing if you insist, if for no other reason than out of intellectual curiosity, to see how far the absurdity can be taken ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a horrible fear that the absurdity of it is the artistry, and we may even be contributing to the artwork by considering whether we should take it seriously enough to discuss... Conceptualism?  pah!   (But maybe I'm just a philistine... no Turner Prize for me).  Jheald (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Fut.Perf. and Jheald. The edits you've made to the article I started for Blue Dress Park have provoked a response from the artist. His remarks were posted to Talk:Blue Dress Park but I copy his note below in case you would like to respond. Jgmikulay (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Drück 11 (outside of Wikipedia, Paul Druecke):

I am the artist that created Blue Dress Park. I am new to the wikipedia community, I wanted to join in the conversation regarding Blue Dress Park started by Future Perfect but, because the page is protected, I could not make comments on this user's page. I hope that Futrue Perfect and Jheald will join in this conversation.

For good or bad, art has become, or more likely it always was, a specialized discipline. Ignorance of historical precedents will lead to confusion, not unlike trying to understand 21st century science without understanding 19th century science, or contemporary philosophy without knowledge of it's precedents. Art's reliance on material objects ended in the 1960's, this evolution in thinking and intention was begun much earlier than that by Marcel Duchamp among others. Regarding my art practice, and Blue Dress Park, I suggest the wiki articles on Allan Kaprow, Happenings, and Relational Aesthetics for an understanding of context and lineage. The creation of Blue Dress Park is referred to as an art happening in Mary Louis Schumacher's article, Milwaukee as Canvas, June 15, 2001, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. This article was not cited in earlier version of the Blue Dress park entry, but Schumacher's more recent reporting on Blue Dress Park was cited. Mary Louise Schumacher is the Arts and Architecture writer for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, she wrote about Blue Dress Park because it is an art project. Because her job is writing about art, her writing presumes this as understood, so it is a bit of a red herring to demand a sentence that proclaims something is art as Future Perfect seems to demand. Future Perfect and Jheald's commentary about art is the same as the conservative voices that berated Impressionism because they couldn't make out a clear subject matter.

The form and intention of art has evolved over time – just as the compiling and distribution of encyclopedic information has evolved over time. I appreciate skepticism, but I'm unclear as to why admitted novices thought it reasonable to ignore an expert source. I feel that the tone of talk regarding this article, along with its editing, portrays the wiki community as out of touch. It would seem unfortunate that the wiki community is stuck in the 1920's when they have such an expansive role to play in the culture of information. Drück 11 (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

NFS Hot Pursuit imagines
Header added by EachCoach2 (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Fut.Perf. ☼, I'm sorry, plese don't block me. I want to ask: can you please delete the NFSHP-Reventon-gamescom.jpg and NFSHP-zonda-gamescom.jpg files? Because I want to upload it as imagines from Flickr, they are from Flicr, that why. So please, can you delete these imaginies right now?

And how can I prove that the file NFSHP-CS-E3.jpg is a imagine from a stream? Because I added the Non-free television screenshot to prove that it is from a television screenshot, but I think that it is not enough for you. So please say to me how I can prove that?


 * It doesn't really matter. What matters is that there is no good justification for having these images in the first place, according to the rules of WP:NFC. Please read that page. Also, we don't delete files just to have them re-uploaded again afterwards. If you want to change the source description, please just edit the description pages of the existing files. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The source for these imagines are currently down, so I can't find it right now, that why. But when I find it, I will upload these imagines again with the Flickr sources, ok? And what do you mean with "It doesn't really matter. What matters is that there is no good justification for having these images in the first place"? So you mean that the imagine in the Forza 3 article, where it i stated "Dan Greenawalt unveiling Forza Motorsport 3 at E3 2009" is right to use, but not the one I have uploaded for NFS Hot Pursuit is not? Give me a reason for that!.


 * The image in Forza 3 is freely licensed, so there's no problem with that one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Corvette
While I disagree with your closure, I would like to thank you for reading through the whole discussion and coming to a reasonable conclusion with a detailed rationale. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi There, need urgent help
Hi Future Perfect @ Sunrise, can I request you to remove the deletion tag for the file Bhagwan_Gopinath.jpg that you wanted for the lack of rationale of use. I have long since added the rationale for the image and now request you to remove the tag to avoid accidental deletion by any of the admins. This is a sincere request. PLEASE .... and Kindly do it before end of day today to avoid the deadline tomorrow....apprecaite you help in this regard in advance02:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the tag. But don't worry, the image wouldn't have been deleted automatically; any other administrator who processes the deletion queue would also first check whether the problem has been fixed, and would have removed the tag in a case like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The "can't be bothered with barnstars" barnstar
&#9734; For finally putting a long-dead horse pablo  07:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ... and apologies for speaking too soon ... gee up, Neddy! pablo 19:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

1987 Mecca Messacre
Your closure's rational is problematic, to say the least. Even if we were to go with your reasoning, the word "riot" is clearly a POV as well, and "Mecca incident" generates more results on Google books and Scholar than any other title. I'd expect you to move the page, accordingly, in line with Wikipedia policies you've cited. Kurdo777 (talk)


 * Funny then that if "Mecca incident" is so much more common, I didn't see you (or anybody else) arguing for that option during the move debate. Why are you bringing forward this proposal only now? On a brief look at the ghits, I am not seeing that this option is so self-evidently superior to the others that I would be prepared to modify the move without more prior discussion. You are of course free to file another move request in its favour. There will need to be more scrutiny of the sources, because it appears that some instances of the term are referring to a different incident (something in 1979, apparently), and others are using it only on subsequent mentioning of the event, after having described it differently earlier. You also need to establish consensus whether the generic "incident" might not be too general and unspecific to serve as a descriptor in the title. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Mecca incident" is not generic, use quotation marks and 1987, and examine the results one by one. I assume your true concerns here as an administrator are the implementations of Wikipedia polices, am I right? So I don't see why you'd not go ahead and move the page to the most policy-friendly title, regardless of what I did or did not argue during the RM request. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, I am open to "incident" as a compromise title, but I don't find it as obvious enough as an optimal solution that I'm going to impose it without discussion. If you can garner consensus for it on the talk page, that'll be fine with me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am also concenred about this issue. I did not vote in the RM request, as I was uneasy with both options, But "riot" is also a POV word, and "Mecca incident" is the most comon and neutral title, in line with our polcies.. I am a sysop on Persian wikipedia, and let me tell you that you have quite a reputation among editors there. Given that, I am not sure if it was the right thing for you get involved here. Btut regardless, as a sysop, you should be implenting the polcies on naming and neutrality, as oppose to taking sides in POV disputes. --Wayiran (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder what your function as an admin on fa-wiki is supposed to have to do with anything. And people over on that project have to business talking about me behind my back. Let me assure you that I don't take kindly to dark insinuations like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't shoot the messenger. All I am saying is there is a perception that you do things a certain way, in a selective manner, and you're not really refuting it when you turn a blind eye on Unflavoured's last two reverts on the Mecca page, despite having issued a general warning that you will not tolerate edit-warring from "any side". It doesn't look good. --Wayiran (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That there is a perception of such bias is frankly completely irrelevant if no one bothers actually bringing facts to back it up. I see no reason FutPerf should give a damn what some admins at another project think if they're not actually going to bring it up with him here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, could you please tell us what your position is, on the last two rapid reverts by User:Unflavoured removing well-sourced content (by reliable third-party sources like Thomas L. Friedman) about the shooting of the protesters and the bullet wounds in the bodies of the victims I'm sure you're well aware that this user had tried to remove this sourced content, which puts the Saudi regime in a bad light, several times in the past, so those edits are considered reverts. Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not publicly declare on that page that any "Further revert-warring from any side will be met with blocks"? In that case, why is User:Unflavoured being given a free pass here, and why has the "enforcement" become selective contrary to what was advertised in your announcement? Kurdo777 (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In assessing edit-warring situations, it is my duty to not simply count reverts, but also consider the quality of people's talk page behaviour and the quality of their edits. Unflavoured proposed his edit on the talk page, gave a proper justification for it, waited a considerable while for discussion, and then made his edit. Wayiran simply chose a blanket revert, with no talk page contribution, and with a false edit summary ("OR", which really doesn't make much sense as applied to that edit). Also, it is my assessment that Unflavoured's edit is a fairly obvious improvment in terms of NPOV, and is fully in accord with the reliable sources I've seen, unlike the text that was there previously, which was quite overtly tendentious and was using sources selectively. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's called Selective enforcement. Unflavoured's proposal to delete well-sourced metrical by third-party scholars had already been discussed and refuted at Talk:1987_Mecca_riot. You're clearly taking sides in a content dispute, which goes above and beyond your authority as an administrator. It is not your job as an administrator to make such "decrees" or judgments about content, and dismiss authoritative academic sources by a renowned scholar like Friedman, as "overtly tendentious", when the other source or sources you're talking about, are basically random books fished on Google books. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, admins do have discretion in enforcement. That's why our policy is written to be clear that 3RR is not an entitlement. And I'm certainly not going to block someone edit warring to agree with sources, either. (I can't confirm or deny FutPerf's assessment of Unflavoured's edits, only say that I'd refuse to block, also.) Admins are never required to block a user. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Images
Hi, I noticed that you have consistently deleted the fair-use images I have added to the article Engagement announcement dress of Kate Middleton, the most recent being File:Kate and Wills engagement.jpg with the summary "(F9: Unambiguous copyright violation: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332312/Royal-wedding-date-Kate-Middleton--Prince-William-wed-Friday-April-29.html?ITO=1490 (Getty))"

However, if you look at F9 on the speedy deletion page, it says the following:

"Obviously non-free images (or other media files) that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. Most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis will not be released under such a license. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the template (or, for image files, the  template). Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.

, "

If you look back at the image I uploaded, it was not a blatant copyvio, but instead an image uploaded with a clear fair use claim. Furthermore, the page says that the appropriate action if an item is a copyvio is to tag it for speedy deletion, not simply delete it (which you have done to three images I have uploaded so far with fair use rationales). If you are having issues with the robustness of my fair use claims, by all means, tag the page and I will do what I can to improve them (although to be fair, the claims are on par with the claims for other fair use images that illustrate fashion articles so I'm not sure what more you're looking for). Either way, in the case of F9, simply deleting the image is not the appropriate protocol based on what the page says, especially since a clear fair use claim was stated in the image description. I would very much appreciate if you would stop deleting these images that clearly meet a fair use claim (and in this case, I would even ask that based on the information provided, that you would reinstate the image, as a fair use illustration for the Kate Middleton dress article). If not, I would appreciate if you would at least discuss the matter with me, and if you still feel necessary, tag the images that you feel are copyvios, as per the protocol laid out on the Speedy Deletion page. Thank you. --Zoeydahling (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, sorry, I got the wrong button on this one, but the deletion was nevertheless correct. The correct criterion would have been the same as for the previous two: WP:CSDb ("Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary"). All of the images you tried were such commercial news agency images. I actually recognize the fair use argument otherwise, but F7b is a real pain. I honestly don't know if there are any less problematic alternatives – perhaps images published by Buckingham Palace themselves? They have their own official Flickr stream, and they did publish photographs of the wedding, so perhaps they did so for the engagement as well. This would still be non-free, but I guess the WP:NFCC concern wouldn't be so big. Or perhaps a photograph made and published by the creator of the dress? – As for the difference between "tag for speedy deletion" and "simply delete it": as an admin, whenever something fulfills a criterion for speedy deletion, I am entitled and in fact supposed to just carry out the deletion on the spot (that's why it's called "speedy"); the tagging is only a way for non-admin editors to call an admin in because they can't do it themselves. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Corvette "no move" decision questioned
Please see the questions I posed about your startling decision here. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said there, I, on the other hand, would like to applaud your move. It took guts—as evidenced by the decision being questioned already—but I think it was well thought-out and the right decision, even though I happen to support putting the disambiguation page at Corvette. Wikipedia needs more admins like you—particularily looking at the backlog at WP:RM... Thanks. –CWenger ( ^  •  @  ) 18:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to say that I admire your actions, and particularly your well-crafted closing summary. Thank you.  Shem (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that the questions I posed about your startling decision at Talk:Corvette remain unanswered here. Also, this is from WP:ADMINACCT:

Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I gave a fairly clear reason for my closing in the closing statement, and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect everybody to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it. Frankly, my opinion is that you are taking this whole matter far, far too seriously, and the best advice I can give you is to take at least one or two steps back from the issue. There are naming disputes that are worth fighting over (where crucial issues of neutrality or other core values of the project are concerned), but I really don't see how this case is among them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the name of this particular article. I'm not fighting for this naming dispute.  I'm fighting for predictability and consistency in article naming in general, which requires following consensus on how articles are named in general.  This particular case is an example of that not happening.  That's what I'm fighting against.  Your decision and refusal to address the follow-up questions I posed further exacerbates the situation, making other articles less  predictable and consistent than necessary.  There is more at stake in when closing admins make decisions like this than you apparently realize.  Please answer the questions.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Born! Leave the Bear alone! Xyl 54 (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Agnes at AMI 2004.jpg
Hi Fut.Perf., you commented in this file that the consent letter was pending. I actually didn't say that. I wrote that it had been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I don't want to sound like I'm complaining to you, but I just don't understand what other steps that I have missed here. I had asked the copyright owner to send the declaration of consent exactly like what had been specified in this guideline Declaration of consent for all enquiries; and the copyright owner had also sent it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (one of the destination emails stated in the guideline). Could you please explain to me if I have missed any steps here. Awriterwrites (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine, don't worry. Seems you did everything right. The tag I placed only meant that receipt of the mail will have to be confirmed by a member of the e-mail response team, which will normally happen within the next few days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

BRIC was again moved back to BRICS
I don't know how this was possible. You moved BRICS back to BRIC after our discussion in the talk page. Now a user was able to move it back. I thought this was not possible due to restrictions. Can you please fix this? Thank you.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  00:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
.

. (I was, I admit, pleased with the result, but I hadn't appreciated before how tricky a task it was; hence the trinket! Xyl 54 (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC))
 * A barnstar for the lamest and most contrived WP:RM decision I've ever seen? Interesting.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 PAG
The Medal table was created so expansion could start immediately on that article. I need to get around to doing that. Also there is information on that page which is not present on the main article. Finally for the image please read the talk page for the rationale. Thanks! Intoronto1125 <b style="color:red; font-size:larger;">Talk</b> Contributions  05:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The redirect can be undone with one mouseclick, once there is something to report on. Until then, I really don't see how the page is useful. By the way, please also see my warning on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼
 * I wasn't aware of the licensing issue. It is the uploader's fault. Intoronto1125 <b style="color:red; font-size:larger;">Talk</b> Contributions   06:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that you uploaded the image on Commons immediately (less than an hour if I remember correctly) after it was uploaded on Flickr, and the Flickr user deleted it immediately (a few minutes) after you were warned about it here, and given that you have a prior history of copyright violations on Commons, I find it more than likely that you were in fact the Flickr uploader yourself, engaging in Flickr washing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? I don't have a flickr account, and neither is my name "JohnB1952". Also, if you go through my "violations" they are from the web and not flikr. Intoronto1125 <b style="color:red; font-size:larger;">Talk</b> Contributions   12:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Logo tagging
File:Friends_titles.jpg is also tagged with a logo license. It probably just needed the screenshot license added to it, why don't you restore it so that I can fix it.--Crossmr (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigma article
Hiya Future Perfect at Sunrise, I was just curious, do you still think that there's a good reason to keep Sigma semi-protected? Regards, — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 03:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, yes, we could try unprotecting it and its friends. The vandal has been quiet for a while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :) — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 16:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:FilipAndTal.jpg
An editor has asked for a of File:FilipAndTal.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <span class="I_STALK_DAMIENS">damiens.rf 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

User:BrianZhukov
I told User:BrianZhukov that I would alert you to his request for a second chance on his talk page. You know more about his violations than me so I will trust your judgement. –CWenger (<font face="Webdings"> ^  • <font face="Webdings"> @  ) 01:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeking some advice/guidance
Hi FPaS, I need to ask for your advice/guidance if possible, which is connected to and. As I am currently under an interaction ban with WP:EEML editors, any edits which so much as reintroduce into the article anything that was removed, could be construed as an interaction, and hence be sanctionable. As I have been just come back from a 4 day block for my edits to Russophobia, I of course would like to avoid any situations which can be used for battleground furtherment in this area. The article as it stands is a POV-ridden mess, and is full of original research, synthesis, and lack of context.

For example, the article as it stands now (and as it did in July 2010), states in the lead:

"According to Lilia Shevtsova, Senior Associate at the Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions Program Chair of the Carnegie Moscow Center, anti-Estonian sentiment is intentionally escalated by Kremlin in its "search for enemies".[4]"

As you can see from this edit from August 2010, I moved the statement to a relevant section, and expanded it to read:

"Within this context, according to Lilia Shevtsova, Senior Associate at the Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions Program Chair of the Carnegie Moscow Center, anti-Estonian sentiment was intentionally escalated by Kremlin in its "search for enemies", however she also notes that even Russian democrats took Estonia's removal of the statue immediately before one of the most respected and cherished dates in the Russian calendar, to be an affront to the Russian national honour,."

The move of this information back to the lead, along with removal of context, presents a serious POV problem with the article, but due to interaction bans, if I so much as touch it, it will essentially regarded as a revert, and hence I can be sanctioned. It also should be noted that the current version does not comply with WP:LEAD in that it introduces material which is not discussed later in the article. But mostly the lack of context is a big problem.

If you review my edits to the article from August 2010, you will notice that they are good faith, constructive edits, and go some way to help to fix the article in its then, and now current, state.

As a neutral and uninvolved administrator, could you please provide your opinion on how to approach issues such as this. Cheers, --Russavia Let's dialogue 00:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. I have also requested advice/guidance from Jehochman here as I think it would be beneficial to seek advice from a couple of different quarters to see what different admins might suggest. And as both of you are neutral and uninvolved, I would value any input. --Russavia Let's dialogue 08:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I would make the observation that an "interaction ban" should not create enforced article ownership as an unintended consequence, that is, whoever of the "interaction banned" parties edits an article first effectively prevents the other party from participating while the editor who "got there first" is active. I would suggest clarifying "interaction ban" to mean commenting on each other; article content can be discussed while characterizations of editors' POVs or ideological affiliations may not. Russavia and I have had such (very) limited interaction and WP has not self-immolated. This also requires that the party remain civil in discussing content where the other party is involved; any incivility expressed regarding content, editors, or related situations at article talk, admin talk, or anywhere else on-Wiki re same would constitute violating the ban. Nor can interaction-banned editors contact each other on their talk pages, as that would be considered both harassment and baiting. (I would note that not discussing personal POVs likely prevents 99% of potential allegations of personal attacks.) P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Flags

 * And what do you think of this flag. As you know, this flag was created in 1969. I think we must not use it in encyclopedia because of its ahistoricality. Maybe we can use it in the article 16 Great Turkish Empires. Takabeg (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2
By motion voted upon at Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: Remedy 25.3 of Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 ("Future Perfect at Sunrise temporarily desysopped") is lifted, effective immediately. is reminded to abide by the policies guiding administrative acts in areas where one is involved, and to apply particular care to avoid conflict in areas related to Greece and Macedonia.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Discuss this
 * FP, I have a watch set on your page. Knowing nothing about this, I followed the links and now I'm totally confused. First, the request was to lift a ban on edit Greek/Macedonia's pages. But on the announcement says a temp lost of admin rights that ended two years ago has ended. What's up with that? Secondly, what good does it do to lift a temp loss of rights that were restored two years ago? Just curious, that's all.BarkingMoon (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, confusing indeed. You need to look at the second sentence of that old arbitration decision. There was still a sort of admin topic ban in force, restricting me from taking admin action in certain areas; that's what was lifted now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha. BarkingMoon (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
I agree with you.Minoan eruption is a wrong term and must be deleted.The other pages are not important.Anyway the same rules must apply to other disambiguation pages.For example Aromanians do not have the same name as the disambiguation term Macedonian.Also in Anatolian (disambig.) there are lot of pages that seem irrelevant to the subject.Mondigomo (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes must burn in Hell
Fut. Perf, will you write some essay on this subject? If you dont want to, i want to ask you to do it my self, and to use your images and thesis, as i find it very useful and good regarding several wiki problems. Essay is needed, as it should explain that some things should and must be excluded from infobox if it will do only problem. Please, respond to me, as i am waiting your response. Thanks. -- WhiteWriter speaks 18:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Man, can you just respond me? Yes or no? Two/three letters will be enough. I am writing you for third time regarding this. -- WhiteWriter speaks 17:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not answering earlier. No, I don't think I'll find much time for such an essay any time soon, although it would certainly be interesting to have one. Feel free to use my image if you want to give it a start. There was also a very nice rant by another editor that I used to have as a caption to the image back when I had it on my user page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! You will be informed when i finish the essay. Extremely interesting subject! -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikihounding
I've started 2 discussions lately about Delta. I don't think I've started any other discussions about Delta, so I'm not sure how that could be construed as forum shopping. I have participated in other discussions about Delta, but those were started by other users, and I'm well within my rights to post my opinions in those discussions. Last I checked, forum shopping was taking the same issue to several places to try and get the result you want. I've never done that. 2 discussions 8 days apart on two separate incidents is hardly forum shopping.
 * 1 on Rd232's talk page and I clearly stated my reasons for doing so. I discovered and issue, and took it there as it was more minor and he seemed to be handling all things Delta at the time. June 9.
 * 1 on AN/I, and I clearly stated my reasons for starting it, after I ran the idea by Jayron who suggested I post it. Today.

As to badgering admins for not sanctioning Delta hard enough, I don't see where I've done that either. I posted a single message on fastily's talk page to state my disagreement. I did so clearly, and frankly I'm not sure that I understand his reasoning. Perhaps I could have worded it different, but in reality I'm seeking clarification because I don't really get what he got from that shot discussion, especially with hammersoft admitting that he could see problems with what he wrote. Apparently I'm not the only one who disagreed with his assessment Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.

The only other admin I've talked to has been Rd232, and nowhere have I badgered him. We had a long discussion about counting edits as a side discussion to the last big thread on AN, and well I asked CBM about his block here, not to badger him but because the block was brought up in the discussion. There were questions about the block itself. During the big AN thread people had made assumptions about the block that later proved to be false when CBM confirmed that he hadn't been aware of all the editing violations when he warned/blocked him. In the last month I've talked to no other admins directly outside of any existing Delta discussion, and inside those discussions, I've never too my knowledge directly accused any admin of not sanctioning Delta hard enough in our recent discussions.

These are all the discussions I've had directly with admins:
 * User_talk:Rd232/archive9
 * User_talk:Rd232/archive9
 * []
 * 

Let me know where I've badgered anyone about how they sanctioned Delta and I'll happily apologize. It's my understanding that badgering would imply that I continually harassed someone about it.

As far as my edit count goes, I haven't been editing heavily the last month, so with 2 large Delta threads, it's no surprise that those chew up a lot of edits.--Crossmr (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and honestly I don't generally follow Delta's edits. it's only because of all the noise surrounding him lately that I picked up on several of the issues. I hadn't even checked anything in the last week until I saw the AN/I thread and gave it a once over and caught that he'd been reverting a lot on a couple articles and one excessively so.--Crossmr (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You've had ample opportunity to respond to this at this point and since people are now trying to use your "warning" as some kind evidence for their criticism I'm going to ask you to either provide diffs supporting the claims you made on my talk page or retract the statement. As I've illustrated above I don't remotely see any evidence to support your claim that either harassed admins about how hard they sanctioned Delta, or that I was forum shopping.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I stand by my assessment of the situation (and I didn't actually say you "harassed" admins). Your actions after the warning in fact strengthen my impression that you are out on a campaign, and this is not good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Badger - to harass or urge persistently; pester; nag . You don't have a shred of evidence that I badgered a single admin. The only one I talked to more than once was Rd232 and nowhere did we talk repeatedly about how hard he was sanctioning Delta. You further accused me of forum shopping, and no where did I meet the requirements for that. Forum shopping requires bringing up the same issue in multiple places. Nowhere am I on a campaign. I'm simply an editor who is concerned at how someone is allowed to repeatedly behave as he does, and I'm not the only one, I've never been the only one. Having passion for a discussion and the willingness to actually engage every line of it isn't a campaign. As anyone is free to reply a discussion, I'm free to reply to them. If I were constantly making threads, following his edits around and undoing things he does, or otherwise commenting on them, you might have some evidence to support that, but once again. I started 2 threads 8 days apart on 2 entirely different topics, and the second only after running it by an admin to see if I should post it.--Crossmr (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Photograph of Hon. Sajith Premadasa

 * Copy to Future Perfect at Sunrise
 * Copy to Editor Skier Dude

Hi Cossde,

The Photograph which I uploaded had been deleted by User Gishwi 1020 which he had been taken from the face book.


 * User Gishwi 1020


 * User Gishwi 1020


 * Photograph from Facebook

The photograph which I uploaded is personally taken by me.


 * Photograph taken by me

Therefore pl. rectify the injustice & upload my photograph to Sajith Premadasa's page.

History of Sajith Premadasa's page

Urgently intervine pl.

Kind Regards,

Photos by Anuradha (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Model 111 Wagner tuba in F.jpg
I have added a 'Non-free media use rationale' for the file. Would appreciate a review. Centaur81 (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The Draza Mihailovic Saga
We need every person we can get over there. I certainly couldn't take it against anyone if they refused, but I have to ask since the more normal people we have over there the quicker can we solve what seems to be the longest Balkans dispute in the history of Wiki. Could you look the issue over and give us your two cents as an expreienced enWiki Balkans admin? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

License info for File: [KK-Sarachandra-Bose.jpg]
Hi, Thanks for your quick inputs & help. I have added the required license info in the source page, hope this is sufficient. Thanks! Philip.wdme (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for File:Master Tara Singh, Kanaiyalal Munshi, and Chakravarti Rajagopalachari at conference.jpg
I have changed the 'Purpose of use'. It would be nice if you could review it. If the rationale is not acceptable, could you suggest one? I wouldn't want the image to be deleted. Centaur81 (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, maybe I didn't make myself quite clear enough. I'm afraid it's not just the old rationales as such that were not acceptable, it's the use of the image itself. The way it is currently used in the article, I can't think of any justification for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This means that no rationale can be legitimate for using a copyrighted image. How can one determine whether the purpose of using the image is justified or not? (Unless the image is totally irrelevant to the topic being discussed). What may be justifiable for one person may not be justifiable for another. The image definitely adds value to the article. It is relevant in its use when discussing the relationship between K.M. Munshi and C. Rajagopalachari. Copyrighted images are being used elsewhere on Wikipedia and I think that my rationale for using it is justified. It definitely 'makes the article more interesting' as I stated earlier. You said and I quote:
 * About updated rationale: "showing that Munshi was actively involved in important meetings" isn't a legitimate rationale either. If it is important to make that point, it can be made in text and verified through reliable sources; we don't need an image to understand that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that "showing that Munshi was actively involved in important meetings" is an important point as is "showing K.M. Munshi and C. Rajagopalachari together", therefore, I find your second statement absurd that "we don't need an image to understand that" (to make a point) and that a point "can [only] be made in text and verified through reliable sources". You know this is not always possible. Besides, sometimes an image can have a bigger impact than written text. Points have already been made 'in text' regarding the collaboration of Munshi and Rajagopalachari and the image I have used endorses their collaboration. I shall consider discussing this on the image talk page. Centaur81 (talk) 05:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Photo use question
Hi FP. You helped me eiwth a photo question before. I have another one. See this site. Click on the "photo use guidelines" link. They can be used free, all they ask for is that you link to them (which on commons as we know you do on the source line), and let them know about it. How should I proceed on this? Thanks. BarkingMoon (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for asking. The site's guidelines speak of free use for "non-commercial" websites only, which unfortunately isn't "free enough" for us. We insist that images must be licensed in such a way that they can be re-used everywhere else, including commercial re-users. So, I'm afraid we won't be able to use these pictures here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. But they were close huh? Maybe I'll try emailing them and asking for CC license or something.BarkingMoon (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sock block
An IP belonging to a blocked user impersonating another blocked user--two questions. a. What is this world coming to? b. How did you know? Experience? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Re. question (a): the world is coming to the state of madness it's been in ever since humans invented schizophrenia, I guess. (b) see Long-term abuse/Wikinger. There were some clear signs. What we don't know is how much of what posed as Jacurek activity elsewhere was really also the other guy. Jacurek claimed that the account that reinstated the insults on Miacek's page wasn't him; that might in fact be true. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Copy/Paste used to create Harold E. Lurier
Could you take a look at this article? I have tagged it, but I was unsure what other actions need to be taken concerning copyright. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A new edit war
Complete with a nasty personal attack - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Galassi&diff=prev&oldid=437327300. What's the correct procedure in such cases? --Galassi (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Shahid Afridi
Are you an administrator? --Srkamal (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Fiji Stadium
Im not that good at english. But what is wrong with the picture? I dont get it.
 * The image is copyrighted, has no valid justification under fair use, and is replaceable with a free photo, because somebody else could take a new photograph and release it under a proper free license. We cannot use such pictures according to our rules on non-free content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks
It's almost a shame that you had to revert ; that's one of the more amusing pro-Korean rants I've read in a while. I especially liked "It is supposed to be "East sea" because it's east side of Asia. However, Japanese changed it to "Sea of Japan" with their sneaky skills of history." (emphasis added). It made me imagine Japanese ninja historians, sneaking through European and US libraries, late at night, secretly altering almanacs and encyclopedias to support the devious Japanese historical revisionism. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Why
At most wikis, you just need to place down a license, and that's it. Why does this **** wiki have to be this way? It's queer. Dawn is my duck. And she will PWN you until you run away and jump in a hole! (Casey should have been said as guilty) (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My edit
Dear friend. You are right that the term Gulf of Arabia refers to the Red sea not the bay in Egypt. It was my mistake. Sorry. I added the reference to the Red sea article now, and I am going to redict it to the Red Sea article. Regards, --Aliwiki (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

wikihounding
That was neither polite, constructive, nor in any way called for. Really bad form, and thanks for the egregious bad faith. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Dimale
Please have a look at the talk page of the article Dimale. Your linguistic expertise is needed! Someone has suggested that the etymology of Dimale quote:" It possibly means "two peaks", from a root *mal-, see Albanian mal "mountain" and Romanian mal "bank" but also e.g. Latvian mala "bank, shore". I can hardly believe that this is something more than folk etymology! (typical for Balkan related articles). Please check and see if the sources that have been given in talk page can be used! Thank youSeleukosa (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I may not be directly involved in the etymology dispute but Aigest has added some reliable sources and Mario Alinei also confirms it. FutureP do you have offline access to works? The 1990 publication seems to confirm that it was an Illyrian placename in a section about Paleo-Balkan toponymy.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 12:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I gather from the reliable sources currently mentioned, I get the following idea:
 * There's a majority opinion that the name is somehow of Illyrian etymology. This is of course entirely natural and plausible, given the geographical context. It seems to be accepted also by Greek authors (see Hatzopoulos) and has several other decent refs to back it up.
 * There's a minority opinion that the name might be of Greek etymology, cited only to Hammond at present. Now, to me, "di-mallon" 'two-fleeced' looks a lot more like a folk etymology than the supposed Illyrian alternatives do (why would you want to describe a city as double-hairy?), but then that's only me.
 * What exactly the Illyrian etymology is seems to be a lot less secure. All the sources seem to agree the "di-" element is the Indo-European numeral (that would actually also be true for the Greek derivation). The rest is marked as somewhat speculative in at least one of the sources, probably rightly so. On the other hand, there is of course nothing inherently implausible about the supposed source IE *mal- 'mountain'; the fact that it also happens to exist in Albanian is of no more inherent interest than the fact that *di- has survived in Greek and elsewhere.
 * The sources now cited on the talk page need to be worked into the article; currently the *mal- derivation is formally unsourced. Note that the Blažek source should probably be reduced to its own ultimate source, which appears to be Krahe 1955, a more directly relevant work. – About the Atlas Linguarum Europae: yes, but not before Monday. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Some snippets from Krahe can be found here and another reference here Hope it helps Aigest (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Unlike in many other cases I've seen, the snippet I'm seeing here is actually pretty informative. Krahe is a reliable source; he was one of the foremost scholars in these kinds of placename studies. Whether we can find out what he based his etymology on, and whether we find it plausible or not, is neither here nor there; we have sufficient evidence he proposed this etymology, in the context of an authoritative treatment that is directly pertinent to the issue. That should be enough for us. Of course, the curious might want to dig further and find out what Hehn & Schrader 1902 are saying, because Krahe sources his statement to them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)Hehn&Schrader are based on Albanian Di (two) and mal (mountain) however even they point to Niebuhr ( Vortrage iiber alte Ldnder-und Volkerkunde, p. 305, Berlin, 1851 link), just like this ref here. Now we have a clear picture as follows So different generations of linguists have given the same explanation for over 150 years, from 1851 up to nowadays. AFAIK no linguist has challenged that, so I guess we can be pretty sure on linguistic bases. Aigest (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 1851 Niebuhr explains Dimale with ->Alb. Di (two) and Alb. Mal (mountain) thus "two mountains" ( Vortrage iiber alte Ldnder-und Volkerkunde, p. 305, Berlin, 1851)link
 * 2) 1902 Hehn&Schrader share the same opinion with Niebuhr -> Alb. Di (two) and Alb. Mal (mountain) thus "two mountains" Kulturpflanzen und Hausthiere in ihrem Übergang aus Asien nach Griechenland und Italien sowie in das übrige Europa; historisch-linguistische Skizzen Authors Victor Hehn, Adolf Engler Editor Otto Schrader Edition 7 Publisher Gebrüder Borntraeger, 1902 link
 * 3) 1964 Krahe supports the opinion of Hehn&Schrader "two mountains" (Die Sprache der Illyrier, Volume 1 Die Sprache der Illyrier, Hans Krahe Authors Hans Krahe, Carlo De Simone Publisher Harrassowitz, 1964 p.101) link
 * 4) 1999 Blažek says the same "two mountains" (Numerals: comparative-etymological analyses of numeral systems and their implications : Saharan, Nubian, Egyptian, Berber, Kartvelian, Uralic, Altaic and Indo-European languages Volume 322 of Opera Universitatis Masarykianae Brumensis. Facultas philosophica Volume 322 of Spisy Masarykovy univerzity v Brně, Filozofická fakulta Author	Václav Blažek Publisher	Masarykova Univerzita, 1999 ISBN 8021020709, 9788021020702) link

Tag teaming again
At Fustanella article there is again a known pattern of tag teaming. A person there entered new text, backed by references. Minutes later he was reverted by user:Athenean, with the false claim of "highly obscure unverifiable sources". I say false claim because both sources were even online on google books as you can see yourself here and here. Practically it was a blind rv with false claim, because both sources were verifiable and online. This brought a revert editing which restored sources and claims, but this was again rv by user Alexikoua with the same false claim that it was a "(poorly explained instant revert (by presenting a non verifiable source as argument)..". Based on the fact that this was a false claim that I restored text and references with this comment "..go to a library, you can not find everything online. If you have doubts on that sources request full citation and page number.." User:Alexikoua had no problem with my edit, however minutes later was another rv by user:Athenean, now with another claim that "The RSN is quite clear: Gjergji should not be used for references to the Illyrians. I call on all participants to show the necessary intellectual honesty and respect that".

In the meantime I had proposed to the participants on the debate to go to WP:RSN if they had doubts on sources and to explain their arguments there. However user:Athenean had already done that one hour earlier before my comment and had not notified anyone from the participants. He had a first comment 30 min later by user:Itsmejudith while none of them checked if WP:RS parameters applied on this case. User:Athenean didn't waited for the others opinion and tried to pass that personal opinion as a final verdict on the talk page. I already expressed my concerns on this kind of behavior on talk page and I went to RSN expressing my opinion (for a summary see the topic please). Now please note that the author on discussion is a notable academic with many publications in the field but according to user Athenean he should be not used on Illyrians because "..The RSN is quite clear: Gjergji should not be used for references to the Illyrians..". Please note the absurdity of this claim while this author works on Illyrian clothings, are used by two main experts on Illyrians such as John Wilkes and Aleksandar Stipcevic on their own books (which are heavily used in wiki regarding Illyrian related articles) and user:Athenean keeps reverting now with this absurd claim. It is very ironic to point out that both Wilkes and Stipcevic are well known to Athenean and Alexikoua and used by them in wiki, however they seem to forget that little particular. Please we need your intervention there before the situation degenerates further. I am directing to you because you are familiar with the Balkan topics. Regards Aigest (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ugly. Can't find the time to look more closely into this. As far as I see, most of the historical sourcing in both versions of the article is poor quality. What's this thing about "the pleated kilt is historically linked to an ancient statue (3rd century BC) located in the area around the Acropolis in Athens"? Who links it with what? And after source falsification, I'm beginning to suspect more strongly that "No. 108" is indeed somebody's 108th sock. Somebody I once knew. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to say. I just don't like the way the things always turn with those guys. First they revert with the false pretext of not verifiability, which is a lie because sources were available online. Then Athenean invents this kind of "no RS" of the author, although the same author is well known and cited in many articles and more important is already used on books on Illyrians by Wilkes and Stipcevic themselves, which are two leading experts on Illyrians!! Now if Athenean does this kind of play with such well known and respectable authors imagine what he could do with lesser known ones?! This kind of biased attitude is the thing which preoccupies me the most as it is practically impossible (at least for every Albanian editor) to collaborate with him under these conditions, although we (Albanian editors) have good collaboration cases with greek editors (user:cplakidas is an excellent example).


 * As for the quality of the article itself I support your opinion. I think I can find the book of A. Gjergji (should check it) and some other sources and I might contribute there in improving it, but right now under these conditions is impossible. Please do something there regarding this issue (I've nothing in mind...invent something:)), so we can pass this awkward situation and actually focus on improving the article. Thanks again Aigest (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @Aigest: typing aggresive edit summaries (i.e. instant reverting by saying go to a library []), and restoring a source you have no idea what's inside (as you claim you have no access), isn't really constructive. Please be more calm, discussing the issue might be better.Alexikoua (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Alex, I've checked the references (which fortunately were online) before editing that's why. Now you should clarify why you reverted with the pretext of "poorly explained instant revert by presenting a non verifiable source as argument" while both sources were actually verifiable online on google books as you can see here and here. Why did you make a false statement?? Aigest (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To say it simple: this book is in snippet view, I kindly asked to have the section that the author claims how the Illyrian link is justified (the correct quote and context, not just half a sentence that simply says F. is I.). But it seems you can't give the precise context.Alexikoua (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you should have waited for him to do so. What citation on reference was telling was verifiable online as I've demonstrated above, so rv with the claim that it was not verifiable was false and wrong. I have the book of A.Gjergji now. There are some pages on that issue. What specifically do you want to know more?Aigest (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Greek music articles
Hello Fut. Perf.! There's a new account,, who has added a few new articles on Greek musical instruments, almost all lifted straight from http://www.greekfolkmusicanddance.com/. Given the field of activity, the evident familiarity with WP tools and formatting etc, the habit of removing warning templates from the talk page and replacing them with "Italic text", the apparent tendency to promote the ancient Greek roots of the bouzouki, I think it is likely that it is yet another sock of the untiring Greek music troll who has displayed similar shibboleths in his previous incarnations. What do you think? Constantine  ✍  21:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cplakidas: Can't you write the origins section and ask for semiprotection?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Greek music is not really my cup of tea... On the bouzouki, there are other users like Phso2 more familiar with the subject to judge on its quality. I am asking Fut to check n him because he has said in a previous ANI thread that the person behind these socks is well-known to him from the past. Constantine  ✍  23:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I am becoming more convinced it is him. Responses like "I will always edit in Greek style and try the best in Greek because I am G r e e k ", bad English and statements towards me that "I can observe you are interesting for editing the slaves articles day and night!" are typical... What a basket case...Constantine  ✍  23:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted photos


My photos: Hi, you removed TONS of images that I owned copyrights for (I took them). You explained that I was a serial copyright violater (which I am seriously not). What can I do to get them back on? Thanks.Bruno Lovric (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, File:Ottoman-tekija-blagaj-bosnia-herzegovina-thumb9600239.jpg was a clear copyright violation from, where it is credited to some other named photographer, and you cropped it to hide their copyright mark. File:Narodno pozoriste mostar.jpg was from , and had no source mentioned and not even a claim of being self-made. File:Mostar tara.jpg was from . File:The herzegovina museum.jpg was from . File:Kosaca5.jpg and File:Kossssaaa.jpg had a copyright mark ("DG"), which doesn't seem to be yours. File:Galerija aluminij 000.jpg was from . So yes, for all I can see, you in fact are a serial copyright offender. This makes me angry, because I had to waste tons of my time to hunt these sources down, and I'm wasting some of my time again right now replying to you. – Some other images of yours were flagged for being unsourced or for having a source but no evidence of permission, or were listed at WP:PUI for being of doubtful copyright status, and you failed to clarify their status. If some of those that were associated with that theatre company were actually yours, you will need to contact "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org" and provide evidence that you are entitled to publish and license them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Maritime Heritage Trail - Battle of Saipan

 * after a deletion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war.

The images on this page are still up for discussion/review, please respect the policy, thank you Legr0004 (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for using my Talk page - the rationale behind these particular photographs being irreplaceable is based on the premise that this page is scientific and archaeological in nature and as such the images being used were purposefully taken for the expression of those ideas. AT LEAST FOR THE TIME BEING there are not any free use image images, taken by a tourist or otherwise, that clearly express the archaeological significance of the sites.
 * This may be an interesting topic for discussion and I kindly ask that you make use of Talk:Maritime Heritage Trail - Battle of Saipan if you would like to continue the discussion, Thank You Legr0004 (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally I ask that you please respect the banner at the top of the page - THANK YOU Legr0004 (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as WP:NO3RR - However referencing Wikipedia:No original research - there is an ample list of PUBLISHED references provided at the bottom of the page in question. Also, the images being used have in fact been published, please see the copyright terms as posted by myself on the image file pages, and feel free to contact the source cited.  I ask you to respectfully revert your last change to the page.  Being a new contributor who is not wholly familiar with all of the rules governing this free-encyclopedia I will be seeking administrative assistance (your own) in this matter. Legr0004 (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I misspelled the shortcut, it's WP:NOT3RR, expressing that my edits are exempt from the 3R rule. As for the banner, I've removed it; it should never stay on a page for more than a few hours. You can't bar other people from editing this article together with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:NOT3RR "What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Legr0004 (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not banning anybody from editing the article just merely asking politely that they consider the nature of the article as being new and a work in progress before making edits and to POLITELY discuss any issues or justifiable edits on the discussion page before proceeding to tamper with the progress of the article Legr0004 (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And per WP:BOLD and WP:OWN, you should not be doing this. Every editor has the right to boldly go ahead and edit this article, without consulting with your first, and you have no right to try and discourage them from doing so, however politely. The tag is only meant for short phases of initial editing, during a matter of minutes or maximally hours. By the way, you are now also in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page Talk:Maritime Heritage Trail - Battle of Saipan, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. Legr0004 (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Elysian Real Estate
The article was working fine, since i add up a couple of pictures in it, it started showing warning. i have reversed the older version that was working fine, with just adding an info box. Hopes this helps. should i remove the tags now or i need to do more things. Please Help as i am new to Wikipedia and working really hard to pick the wikipedia tone.

Cookie
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

BrianZhukov has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thank You for Everything!

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Rozen Maiden characters
I see you've locked the "list of Rozen Maiden characters" page for two weeks.

Don't you think to would be more appropriate to lock a version of the page that included the images so that they can be discussed; otherwise, the consequence of your lock will be that the images will inevitably be deleted as orphans, whatever the rights and wrongs of their inclusion. Jheald (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, I don't really need to remind an editor of your experience of the "wrong version", do I? Well, to be honest, I hadn't actually thought of the deletion queue issue when I made the protection. But what's the problem? I didn't in fact tag the images, so the clock isn't even ticking yet. People have at least one week from now, or from whatever moment somebody decides to tag the files for deletion, in order to come to a consensus. If there is no consensus for the images, then they will stay out, as they should (remember that NFC images need a consensus for inclusion, not a consensus for removal). If such a consensus is reached, give me or any other admin a shout and the protection will be lifted. Even if the images should have been deleted in the meantime, remember, restoring them is just a mouseclick. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Photos (Transformers: Dark of the Moon)


328px|thumb|left| This is however, relevant to the film plot, especially when it says that "The Decepticons, led by Megatron and Sentinel, seize Chicago as their agents place Pillars around the world." Can I simply just change the headline in the box under the picture?
 * Hi, thanks for asking. I'm afraid I still don't see that it would meet our strict criteria of non-free content use, especially WP:NFCC. Sure, the event may be important within the plot, but I don't see why this particular event, more than all the others in the film, is in need of visual illustration to be understood. But in any case, you'll now need to argue your case on the files for deletion page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

So, you're saying, that this particular scene is not relevant or important enough to be shown in the plot? Can I simply take another photo? If you won't mind? You can delete this one.


 * No, the way the article is right now, I don't see how it is in need of any additional pictures. You should use non-free images only once a pressing need for one arises from the article itself – i.e. if you have a passage of analytical commentary (about the style, the production, the technical effects, the esthetics of the film or something like that) which wouldn't be understood without an illustration. If you're going about saying "I want to use an image, so let's see what image I can most easily find a pretext for", then you're doing something wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. Well, thanks for the quick responses.

Amir Hossein socks
New sockpuppets are User:NavidMahdavi and User:Room2011. --Martin H. (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Old posting taken from your archive. Next sock is User:Mahdi.Arefi. --Martin H. (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actually, just today, I also came across, possibly also . Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * KeshtoKar is blocked on Commons by me. Reviewing the Ceckuserlog I remember that I caught him together with commons:Special:CentralAuth/Allowchek and commons:Special:CentralAuth/JamalSalehi, both Commons-only sockpuppets. --Martin H. (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please check again --Vinie007 13:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Images
See this. All images are similar to the two that I took to FfD: and the one above it. I took those two as test cases, do you think the rest would need FfD discussion or could we tag for F4? I mostly handle only F9s. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The obvious process thing would be the di-no permission tag. But it's a pity the editor hasn't been around for so long, so they won't probably get the message even if the claim was in fact true – which doesn't seem so inherently unlikely. If any of the images are valuable for us, it might actually be worth dropping an e-mail to that website to let them confirm. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem was that I couldn't find the images (I didn't search for all, just 3) on the external sites to even see if we could request them. (This is the BJP, but on the rival INC images we had similar copyvios on Commons with the uploader telling us something to the effect that he was "going to be running for election for an MP position and to contact the Lok Sabha secretariat on copyright issues" while claiming credit for images taken in India and China when he was sitting in Michigan!) cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Several of the "former BJYM presidents" images seem to be here . Some other stuff is here ; the source link in File:Narendra Modi VGGIS 03.JPG was a bit misspelled. So, yes, I'd say there's some plausibility it was somebody connected with those sites. On the other hand, if they were really the webmaster, why didn't they have larger copies of those portrait thumbnails? In any case, you'd do nothing wrong procedurally if you just "no-permission"-tagged them all. I'm honestly not interested enough in those politicians to do much extra work over and above that trying to rescue them, and I could understand it if you weren't either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that list, that's why I wasn't able to find them in the gallery I guess. I'll do the di-license tagging soon. On a different note, can you look at File:Vivekananda Sig.jpg? It was incorrectly tagged as a fair-use image and therefore nominated for deletion as orphaned-fair use image, but it's really a derivative of a PD image located at commons (and sourced within the file page). I've attempted to fix it, but do we (en.wiki) accept PD-Old the same manner as Commons? cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

image
User talk:Since 10.28.2010 here, I have deleted your comment. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Zeibeks
Hello Future! Our intrepid troll has created yet another account, made a dozen edits here and there to become autoconfirmed, and has begun re-adding his POV in Zeibeks and Zeibekiko. Not only that, he's reported me for vandalism and managed to get me slapped with an ARBMAC warning. I thought you should know, because no one else seems to care. Constantine  ✍  17:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Good to see this has been cleared up in the meantime. I have blocked as another sock of . Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Guess what: . Constantine  ✍  19:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is that some of this sock activity is probably not the troll himself, but another banned nutcase mimicking him, . He does these things just for the lulz. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, so that's why the MO changed and the messages in Greek stopped. Anyhow, thanks for the interventions, and I swear I'll respect admins more from now on, after experiencing first hand what headcases they have to deal with ;) Cheers, Constantine  ✍  19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Andromaqi Gjergji
Could you please give an opinion here? There is too much biased speculation by wiki users, which is totally contradicted by scholars' works. Also on a related matter, there seems to be much speculation by wiki users on ex-eastern Europe publications. I've seen frequently the argument that "scholars being under a communist regime qualify as no RS". It is frustrating, because those who use it more, usually don't take the time to consult what other scholars actually say about the author which is under discussion. Regards Aigest (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin eyes would be appreciated
A couple of days ago you responded to an ANI thread about Nair & then subsequently did some work cleaning up the situation on the article, its talk page & (I think) the pages of one of the contributors.

The situation on some caste articles with which I am involved is messy and is likely to stay that way for some time. and have both been performing admin duties at them but I feel that some more eyes would be useful, and BsZ  has agreed. It is likely that I will have to instigate an SPI at Yadav if reverts of cited content persist there during the next few hours; an SPI for Nair & Ezhava has just concluded at Sockpuppet_investigations/Shannon1488 (and was not the first by any means); and there is currently an open SPI at Sockpuppet_investigations/Ajneesh_Katiyar for Kurmi. Some of these spill over to other articles, obviously, but the articles I list here are the principal ones.

Could you possibly consider BsZ's comment? I shall be contacting Salvio with a similar request. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

TomPointTwo
Sorry about that, looks like I edit-conflicted your comment re the block. If I'd noticed it I would have deferred to you to decline or accept it. 28bytes (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, lol, apparently there were three of us stepping on each other's toes. No problem as far as I'm concerned; thanks for the notice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost a fourth - but I hit an ec, and noticed others were already respponding to it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing quite like edit-warring on AN/I itself to get a lot of admin attention, eh? :) 28bytes (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of files
What was the reason you deleted File:Cirrus vertebratus.jpg, File:Cirrus radiatus.jpg, and File:Cirrus floccus.jpg? Inks.LWC (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * These images were sourced to Flickr, but the Flickr images were licensed only under a "noncommercial-use-only" license, not the free license you said they were under. Noncommercial-only images cannot be used here. When taking images from Flickr or similar sites, it's always important to check what precise license they are under (bottom right corner on the Flickr page). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK - I didn't realize we can't use non-commercial-use files on Wikipedia. Also, it might be helpful in the future if you leave a note on talk pages of users after deleting the images.  If I hadn't noticed it in my watch list, I probably wouldn't have realized we can't use non-commercial-use files. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

AIV
Not sure if you're currently online but if so you might want to take a quick look at WP:AIV. Sock? EyeSerene talk 17:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * LOLsocks., , . Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and blocked. Cheers, EyeSerene talk 17:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Prevented from editing on grounds of Sock Disruption
I have not edited anything since the 8th of June, have not engaged in sock puppetting, nor is anyone else using this IP address - why have I been blocked? FOARP (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, from what you say I can't recognize what exactly happened here. You weren't recently blocked, and you evidently aren't blocked now, or you couldn't be editing here. Probably you were accidentally hit by an Autoblock? But without knowing the exact message you received when you tried to edit, I have no way to figure out which original block caused it. Did it say something like "your IP has been blocked because it was recently used by User:XYZ"? In such a case, the likely reason would be that you are on a dynamically assigned IP address, and one day you happened to receive one that had previously been used by a blocked editor. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's the header - […] FOARP (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, got it now. I've removed that block for the time being. Sorry again for the trouble. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Legend of The Guardians-Pictures
Hello there, I see that you have reverted my edits to Legend of The Guardians- which involved the picture gallery. I have reverted your edits, because I feel that the page looks quite bare, and boring without a picture or two. Furthermore, not many viewers know who Borran and Barran are; so it's best to leave that picture there. I felt that I should adress directly the four main characters, Soren, Gylfie, Digger, and Twilight. So that picture needs to stay for viewers to see who these characters are. Finally, Soren and his family, not too hard to explain right? Viewers need to know what names go with what characters. Anyway, I hope you agree with me and that this does not turn into an agrument, because this is nothing to argue over. Thanks, happy editing Monkeys 9711 (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Solution
I will refuse to be rude here, as Wikipedia encourages all users to be polite when dealing with a situation. So, my solution is, to be fair here, I strongly suggest, to keep the plot from becoming "over crowded" with images, that we choose one image to stay there, so you have your way, and I have my way, and lastly, it still meets the requirements. Do you agree? Monkeys 9711 (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I don't. The current infobox image is more than enough for this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are simply just being incooperative now my friend. Images are what make up articles on Wikipedia! And I can't believe that you think there should only be one image for this large article. Many, many other articles on Wikipedia have images in their plot, and anywhere else on their article. Here is just one example, The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas (film only) has an image in the infobox, and also has an image in it's plot. I'll even throw in another example, Popular Mechanics for Kids. Here are a few other example movies, Toy Story 3,Speed,How to Train Your Dragon,Zathura The Parent Trap, The King's Speech and last, The Golden Compass. Can't top those examples. On Wikipedia, you are not allowed to give your opinion in an article. That is what you are doing. You don't want an image elsewhere in the article, because you don't like the way it looks. Since there are hundreds of images on Wikipedia that have more than one image in an article. So one image is far too less. I remember reading a page on Wikipedia, and it stated that users are encouraged to add images to an article to "Put the finishing touches on it". Lastly, I am only talking about what is to be fair here, and what I said before is fair. I would appreciate your cooaperation. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to help mediate as an impartial third party, as longtime editors are sometimes asked to do informally.


 * My first impression is that I must ask that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise remain civil and not use such phrases as "patently false pseudo-boilerplate junk you placed there." We can all make our cases calmly and diplomatically.


 * The other point I believe needs to be made is that Wikipedia operates on consensus and compromise. User:Monkeys 9711 stepped away from his position of multiple images. It appears to me that Future Perfect at Sunrise is refusing to budge, or to try to see that another editor's points may be valid. That may not be the most helpful and collegial take on this dispute.


 * There's certainly no guideline anywhere saying a film article can have only a single infobox image. And given that the image shows the characters posing, statically, in a scene not in the film, it doesn't seem unreasonable to include an actual production still that illustrates the movie itself and not simply one of its marketing and promotion posters.


 * I've often found that, as improvisationists say, "Your idea, plus my idea, equals our idea." By insisting on doing things one way only, in the absence of policy or guideline that so dictates, such insistence may be crossing the line into WP:OWN.


 * I have no dog in this race, or no owl as the case may be. I can simply offer a fresh perspective in the hopes of helping these two parties reach reasonable compromise. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your advice is useless as long as it doesn't touch on the actual issue. Every image must fulfil a crucial function for understanding the article, and the FUR needs to explicitly show how it does so. There is nothing incivil about pointing out that adding meaningless pseudo-rationale gibberish won't help these images be kept. Adding such pseudo-rationales is highly disruptive, and if he does it again, he'll be blocked. Also, as long as this editor still wants images just because otherwise the page looks too boring, there is simply no case to compromise over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A question - are these images freely licensed, or are they non-free content? If the latter, then there are restrictions on how they can be used and for what purposes, as per WP:NFCC. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As with other film articles, these would non-free images used under a fair-use rationale, just like the infobox image. In that respect this is no different than any TV, film, comic book, etc. article.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So going by Tenebrae's logic, Future Perf, would you like to compramise? Wan't me to add fewer images, so it is fair for both of us? Monkeys 9711 (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note, re: your phrase "add fewer images": I'm only advising a compromise of a single additional image, of the movie itself as opposed to the marketing image already here. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, I will try to make a compramise with Future Perf with only adding one image to the article to make things truly fair :) Monkeys 9711 (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The solution is not to add "fewer images". The solution is to write better articles. And then adhere to WP:NFCC. This is not a matter of how many images are legitimate, but for what purposes images are legitimate. The better an article, the more naturally it will support an actual, functional need for an image. For instance, if there were a substantial, sourced section of analytical commentary dealing with, for instance, the film's technique of showing birds with semi-anthropomorphic faces, or whatever other creative features, techniques, special effects etc reviewers have found interesting, then there might be a decent case of illustrating those observations with an image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that for a non-free image to be used in an article, there must be a specific and clear rationale provided which adheres to the permitted usage described in WP:NFCC. A non-free image cannot be used just because an article would look better with more pictures -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have read my last message, I had said that if you would be cooaperative and compramise with me, the solution would be half and half; you have your image that you like in the infobox, and I have my image that I prefer in the plot. Simple as that. And with Tenebrae's assistance, He had said that there is certainly no guideline at all that says an image can't be used in the plot of a film. Furthermore, my examples of one of my first messages have images in there article too and are used under fair use. Also, in order to use a non free image, you must specify the source and infomation, and the website that it came from; and that is exactly what I did, so with that being said, this is not crossing the WP:NFCC. There is absolutely no excuse for that. And there is also no excuse why I am "not allowed" to place only one image... one image in the plot. Furthermore, User: Tenebrae has been a user on Wikipedia for 6 years; he knows exaxctly what he is doing, so there is no going against his assistance. Also, this is something to compramise over. You are simply still "refusing to budge" as Tenebrae stated, being an inmature user, and being incooaperative, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Compramising is a mature, and appropriate way to deal with these situations. Your idea, plus my idea, = our idea. Plain and simple. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

We can start talking once you make an effort at understanding our non-free use policy. Which you have not done. You are still not giving any signs of understanding what it takes for an image to be legitimate. BTW, I too have been around for a couple of years, and I'm an administrator. Don't trust Tenebrae's advice; their own image uploading habits have frequently been counter to policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A word of advice, administrators should have an understanding of remaining civil in a situation, which you have not. I suggest you change that to be a better administator.. And I have delt with Tenebrae for a while now, and he is a user that knows what he is doing, and I do trust him. Also, I do have a full understanding of our non free use policy. I am simply just not going into details because there is absolutely no need to. Also, the WP:NFCC policy states that multiple non free use images cannot be placed in one article, which is correct. I have agreed to use only one non free image. AKA a compramise. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Monkeys 9711. Firstly, I'd like to suggest you leave off the personal criticism and just stick to the content/policy issue in question - this will not be decided by who you like better, on who's the best admin, or on how long various people have been around, but by a consensus decision based on Wikipedia policy. And it's not a question of compromising between what different people prefer, but a question of what is actually permissible. Regarding non-free-content use, it really does sound to me as if you do not fully understand Wikipedia's policy here. It is a policy based on law, and the law does *not* say that you can use whatever content you like wherever you like just by specifying "the source and information, and the website that it came from" - if that were so, it would mean we could steal people's intellectual property any time we wanted without good reason. No, while that is needed, what is also needed is a fair use rationale for each and every individual use of a non-free image, which justifies its use according to the requirements of WP:NFCC. So what I suggest you do is choose an image, and then provide such a rationale - and then people can assess it and we can work towards a community decision on whether your rationale satisfies the provisions of WP:NFCC. Unless you can provide a satisfactory fair use rationale, you cannot use even one single non-free image. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

See? now that is how you deal with users in a proper way. :) Explaining things in a way that is mature and civil. But I must state that I did read the WP:NFCC, and understand it; but tend to be lazy read things too quickly, therefore and will not fully understand it. So yes, I will choose an image, and make sure that I provide a proper rationale. Again, thank you for explaining that to me. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Monkeys 9711 do you understand that compromises might be warranted when both desired positions fall within policy (but not otherwise)? If one person proposes X and another proposes 3x, it may (but not necessarily) make sense to compromise at 2X if both X and 3X comply with policy. However, if X complies with policy and 3X does not, then discussion of a compromise is not on the table. I'd like to ask you to answer the generic question first, then we could discuss whether the generic question applies in this instance. -- SPhilbrick  T  19:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Complaint from Tenebrae
I am dismayed that Future Perfect at Sunrise, whom I noted as speaking uncivily to another editor and to me ("Your advice is useless"), has taken to retaliation by essentially Wikistalking me to compile a list of my image contributions that in his opinion do not satisfy non-free FUR. I would point out that unless Future Perfect at Sunrise is a copyright attorney, then his opinions are, by definition, amateur opinions, and before any deletions are done to what I consider careful attempts at FUR that we have an unaffiliated third-party admin weigh in. Unless Future Perfect at Sunrise is a copyright attorney, his absolutism is unwarranted &mdash; as is his personally chasing down my contributions after I posted something with which he disagrees. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? I don't need to be a copyright lawyer in order to understand Wikipedia's non-free use policy. The two fields have relatively little to do with each other. I'm sure I have no idea about much of what copyright lawyers do, but I sure am knowledgeable enough about how NFCC works. The images I tagged were non-free images of living people. Those are open-and-shut cases. They will be processed in the normal way, through regular admin review on the deletion queues. – Don't complain I looked at your upload log. I didn't invite you to insert yourself here as a "mediator" (there never was anything to mediate, you know.) But I do have a habit that whenever I see somebody make questionable statements in discussions about non-free content, I will give their contribs a glance to see what skeletons they have in their upload logs themselves. Don't join these kinds of debates if you don't want the scrutiny. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI. 28bytes (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am floored by the unnecessarily arch and uncivil tone Future Perfect at Sunrise is taking. It certainly lacks good faith to assume another editor has "skeletons ... in their upload logs." Moreover, to castigate someone who was asked to come help mediate &mdash; informal mediation being something Wikipedia advocates and supports &mdash; is remarkable. Finally, "Don't join these kinds of debates if you don't want the scrutiny" is nothing less than a threat: To suggest that editors not try to help each other because someone may then open an investigative file into their activities crosses a line. Your behavior is improper and threatening --Tenebrae (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Tenebrae: I came here as a result of the AN discussion. Wikipedia does indeed support mediation. However, the first step of mediation is gaining the agreement of all parties to accept you as mediator. Can you provide a diff that shows where you were accepted by all the parties in the mediation role? Manning (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Question - not about the tagging rationale, but about the possible impression left
I see at least one example of a tagging of an image added by Tenebrae. Without opining on the accuracy of the tagging (indeed, I made it a point to not look too closely) would you agree that the timing of the tagging, in view of the attempt by Tenebrae to mediate a dispute between you and Monkeys 9711 generates an appearance that isn't favorable? I can imagine a plausible scenario - Tenebrae makes a comment which could imply a particular understanding of policy, you wonder if the editor, in fact holds that opinion, and one way to see is to look at some images provided by the editor. You look at some of the images, see something you feel is at variance with policy, and while there, tag them. Or maybe something else entirely - but I'll return to my question—do you see how that action could be interpreted?-- SPhilbrick  T  19:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've explained this in the section right above this. I have a long-standing habit, never concealed, never apologized for, that whenever I see people making questionable interventions in NFC discussions, I will check their own upload logs. To see where they are coming from, and to see what standing they have in the discussion. I know some people hate it, but I have long resolved I won't make allowances for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you consider the possibility that adding the review to your own personal to-do list, to be investigated a few days or weeks later might avoid an impression, reduce the possibility of even unintentional personal bias, and the only downside it that an image, very possibly in existence for years, might take an extra week or so to be addressed? I'm conceding a downside to waiting, but wondering if the upside might be worth it?--  SPhilbrick  T  19:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't keep systematic to-do lists. Too much work, for a routine thing such as somebody's problematic image upload log. As a new-uploads patroller, I go through maybe half a dozen cases per day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Final thought
I'm glad we were able to work together to, ultimately, a positive result. But I would be remiss not to mention that you had no right to be rude and uncivil and to verbally castigate me and another editor recently. Even if you weren't an admin, who is supposed to be a role model in terms of proper behavior, I hope that an obviously intelligent person as yourself can agree that it's wrong to insult other people, particularly those acting in good faith. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What insults? Telling Monkeys that his rationales were junk? Well, they were. Telling you that your advice was useless? Well, it was. Those aren't insults; they were pieces of matter-of-fact criticism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised and disappointed at what you consider acceptable treatment of other human beings. It shows a remarkable lack of empathy and diplomacy. Since you seem to feel such rude and uncivil behavior toward others is fine, and I've made a good-faith effort to discuss this with you and was rebuffed, I guess the next step is to take this to Wiki Etiquette and let a neutral third party comment as to whether it really is proper to call an editor's good-faith effort "patently false pseudo-boilerplate junk" and "meaningless pseudo-rationale gibberish" &mdash; really? those were the best of all possible words to express your disagreement? &mdash; and good-faith discussion is never "useless." The bottom line is neither you nor anyone else has a right to insult or be uncivil to other editors, and if "gibberish" and "junk" is your idea of dispassionate, constructive criticism, I'd be very surprised if other admins agreed with you.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Image Deletion
hello sir, i am not very good at uploading images on wikipedia. but i assure you i upload only those images on wikipedia which are either created by me or are free to use (as in the case of onlyi.jpg, this image was uploaded on other sites by me as it was created by me). But i dont understand wikipedia licenses, so it would be very helpful if you guide me into this. with regards Garvit (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You claimed both File:Manav rachna college of engineering (mrce).jpeg (the college logo) and File:Onlyi.jpg (the photograph used on the college's official home page) as your own work. Are you the webmaster, public relations photographer and logo designer for this college? If you claim you are, then we'd please need official confirmation of that, through an e-mail from your company mail address to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org". I'd also expect that you could contribute a higher-quality, high resolution copy of that photograph, rather than this web resolution one.
 * You also claimed that File:Srajput.jpg, taken from thehindu.com, was under a free cc-by license. I looked at the source, and the images there are all clearly marked as fully copyrighted. Earlier, you had claimed that File:Ramprakash.jpg, from india.gov.in, was freely licensed, but on being asked to substantiate that claim you remained silent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was saying, I don't understand licensing for images. And about manav rachna images I can provide you with high res. Pics in two weeks. See, I know you are trying to keep wikipedia clean. But I am not a criminal or pirate who is on a mission to destroy wikipedia. I again ask you for help on licensing terms. And about my silence- I want to avoid any conflicts here, there are lot of conflicts in the real worl, can't we keep wikipedia peaceful as it was meant to be. Hope u undestand this time. And apologies if I have done anything wrong unintentionally. With regards Garvit (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Sir, i may have unintentionally added some other images like the previous ones. I am sorry for that. and it would be very helpful if you give me some advice over this (like from which website it is fine to have a image and from which isn't) and also something about licensing. it would be very helpful. with regards Garvit (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

RoshniShroff images
Will you finally stop? How often do you have to be told that you cannot use these images? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This image was from the Grazia Magazine Photoshoot and we have been allowed to use the same as PR for Poorna(with access to all the original images). The image is also uploaded to her profile on IMDB. I apologize for the earlier uploads, and accept that I was wrong. Although, I believe this image was uploaded correctly; Categorized under promotional photo with credit given to the photographer. Do advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoshniShroff (talk • contribs)


 * wrt-The point is, you cannot use any image that isn't released under a fully free license (free re-use by anybody for any purpose, including commercial use; modifications and derived works allowed). If you have such a license from the photographers, then please forward it to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org"; without it, there isn't anything that can be done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Re:
 * Thank you so much. Will keep that in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoshniShroff (talk • contribs)

i didnt upload this image. There must be a misunderstanding.Garvit (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course. The paragraphs just above here were totally unrelated to you. Another editor posted this here and forgot to put in a new section heading for it. I've added that now. Sorry for the confusion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

CSD for File:Je suis né d'une cigogne (cover).jpg‎
Could you remove the CSD template which you placed for this file? The article page which uses this image was in my userspace which you failed to see. morelM William 16:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

And the other side.
.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note
Please note that File:Doctors wife screenshot.jpg – the first FfD of which you participated in – has been renominated for deletion today. Please see Files for deletion/2011 July 20 if you wish to participate. Thanks. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag► tortfeasor ─╢ 08:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC) --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Qu (maybe apostrophe) ran
Are you still watching this? Do you think the poll should close? (Myself, I preferred to give an opinion than make any decision.) All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I said I'd be watching this but totally forgot about it. And now I won't be available for another week or so. If anybody wants to close it, they are of course welcome to do so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think I should because I participated in the debate. I suspect no one else wants to close it because they don't want to step on your toes... – Quadell (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ping... It's been about a week, so I thought I'd see if you're available. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Uffff. Done. Thanks for the reminder, and sorry for the delay. That was one hell of a long-drawn-out process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Action required against vandalism
The article Mahindra Racing is being vandalized repeatedly by a certain user by pasting contents from the team's website, not even bothering to reformat it.

I have reverted back the article quite a few times and also specified the reason in detail of rv on the article talk page.

I have observed you doing one rv on the article once, hence I am writing to you to take some action to stop this. Or just suggest me what to do in such scenario.

This is the second time I am writing with the same request, it remained unanswered and went into archive.

PratyushG. 15:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Talk

Edit: Sorry for being restless, but i have also written to Materialscientist. I noticed he is recent changes patroller, thought vandalism is something of his domain.

Talkback
AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI
If you're interested: WP:ANI. Best,  F ASTILY  (TALK) 05:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete my wiki page?
Kmacdoan (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)I am new to talking to users, I am sorry if this is wrong. Why did you delete my page? I just finished talking with wiki permissions, had the go and than you delete my wiki page. On top of that I didn't have the new informaiton saved on a word. I have to re due everything, which is why I am re posting the text onto my user page. I am REALLY not happy about this. I am going away on a business trip and this assinment is due thursday. I DO NOT HAVE TIME to go back and forth with wiki again. I just did for ONE WHOLE WEEK. So please, tell me what to fix so you wont delete my wiki page. I have followed ALL your guidelines. I am sick of this bs with wiki. Lets fix this problem NOW.Kmacdoan (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Upload
Sorry for uploading ... I won't do anything like that again.I checked it over, and I didn't see any copyright stuff. But I realized that it was too small, and wanted it deleted. But the main reason that I uploaded that file was to improve the article Green Leaves, that has incorrect dates, and a lot of untrue stuff. Atterion  Talk •Contribs   08:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. I guess the most important lesson to take away from this is that just because you "don't see any copyright stuff" on a page doesn't mean it's safe to take it. Every image is assumed to be copyrighted by default, even without a copyright notice, and it needs an explicit licensing statement to release it for free use, not the other way round. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with the fun!!
I have removed your latest personal attack against Fastily here. At this point, you need to take two or three steps back from this whole situation, because you come across as being on a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT rampage, and you're not looking good. You may well think that it would have been inappropriate for Fastily to block you, but he had every right of warning you that a block would be likely if you continued, and I'm repeating this warning now (and I, in fact, will have no compunction carrying out such a block too if necessary). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * He's made several very serious lies against me.  I have asked him to retract them, he has refused.  If you want to, I'd welcome an arbcom review into which of the two of us has abused their position more.   I called him a liar for saying he'd block me, that he was intimidated, and that i fabricated licensing information.  These are all false, these are all one the record, and two out of the three are demonstrably false.


 * That said, I've had enough of dealing with your copyright crusade tonight. Perhaps you can draw up a petition of the admins and I'll leave permanently, if that's for the best.  Everybody burns out, and when I spent four hours finding a picture to have it deleted without discussion, knowing a LOT about copyright law and how legal the use was, perhaps I went from "mature" to "burnt out".


 * You can't take hours of someone's life and delete it. Oh, if they were in bad faith, fine.  If it doesn't belong in the article, fine.  If it was a highly requested image???  and work was put into it?? and you delete it for unpredictable, obscure reasons?


 * That just convinces me to not invest any serious time in the projects.  Four years ago, seven years ago, this didn't happen.  I knew the rules, the rules were followed.  Now, it's just a testosterone filled mess where law and common sense have given way to shouting and mindless bureaucracy.


 * And I guess we've all done our part and making this place a little less welcoming and open today. Fewer image uploads, less trust, and worse articles.  Good work all round. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

British Isles stuff
Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise I left a note for Moonriddengirl yesterday evening about this (I want a second admin to review whether or not a user should be sanctioned per WP:GS/BI). Moonriddengirl appears to be busy - if you get a chance I'd very much appreciate some input, even if she gets back to me another POV wouldn't go amiss--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 10:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Email
- F ASTILY  (TALK) 16:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Retroradioman29 images
Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise, I noted that you have concerns over my images, I listed the "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License."

I saw not further area to elaborate.

i can reload the files with me as the copyright holder if need be.Retroradioman29 (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for coming back to me about this. Yes please, if you are indeed the copyright holder, then please do add that information to the images. You don't need to re-upload them for that purpose; just go to the image page and edit it like any other page. You can add a statement like "My own photograph", preferably with a brief description of where, when and how you took the image. However, in a case like File:Ptsd-800x800.jpg, I have some doubts, as it looks like a news photograph taken from somewhere on the web. If you are not actually the photographer who took this, then there is no way we can keep the file, unless you can demonstrate it is somehow under a free license or in the public domain (which is unlikely though). In that case, at a minimum, you'd need to add a description and/or link to where you took the image from so we can verify who created it and/or owns it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bye
I'm due to be vanished by day's end, so goodbye. For my part, I'm sorry if I was unnecessarily incivil or upsetting to you personally. EnWP used to be a very civil place full of discussion. Instead of discussions we have iron-clad rules, instead of civility have what what you see every time you delete a good-faith contribution.

Don't let yesterday become tomorrow. I'm leaving, if I'm the problem there is no problem. I've been here a long time. There's a problem. Yesterday was a great example of it.

Learn from it or the project dies. I can't stay here to learn from it for you anymore, and no one gives a shit what I think anyway. ---Alecmconroy (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I sincerely regret your decision and I'm sorry you feel the way you do. But I'm afraid you did misconstrue the whole situation about those images rather badly yesterday, and given the way you acted I don't really see how I could have responded differently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Photos
Hi F.P. Can you guide me as to Wiki's copyright policy on uploading photos from museums. Is permission expressly required Slovenski Volk (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll need a bit more concrete information for this one. Photos you took yourself in a museum? Or photos published by the museum? And of what kinds of objects? (Modern works of art that might themselves be copyrighted; ancient art; other artifacts?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a photo I myself took of a reconstrcuted ancient Illyrian dwelling within the grounds of a museum, as well as photos taken by me of ancient pottery, in Ohrid Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

explanation
well, during christmas i was there at treasure island, a shopping mall in indore. I saw a shop where everyone was busy in the making of a sketch of themselves. I went there and payed for myself also. That was an amazing sketch painting. I immediately told to make a sketch of my favourite movie star Ajay Devgn, then one day i submitted that to desipaintings.com. Now i've lost the original one, so that i claimed this image again.

Shrikrishna 3 (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free use images
Despite the lack of notification, I have noted your objection to the non-free use images File:Stingrays kelly cup 2001.jpg and File:Stingrays kelly cup 2009.jpg. As I have found suitable free images to use in their place, I see no need to waste time disputing their use rationale. Please feel free to delete them at your leisure. Cheers,  Cjmclark (Contact) 18:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you translate ths?
Emailed you but I guess it got lost. Can you read ? It's used in Greek pyramids but by someone whose edit is unclear. I'd like to reword it to reflect what Sampson actually said. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, right, sorry, yes I remember it was in my inbox but I was away on vacations. Unfortunately I don't read Serbian. Could you ask some of our contributors from a little bit further up in the Balkans? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's more. I've now managed to locate the original publication by Sampson (1996). It was a bit misleading, because the titles of both the article and the journal are in fact in Greek, not in English as cited in the Serbian paper. So, it's N. Sampson (1995[sic]), Οι πυραμίδες της Αργολίδας και η πραγματική σημασία τους [=The pyramids of Argolis and their true meaning]. Archaiología kai Téchnes 57 online paper. It's freely accessible online and there's an English summary at the end of the paper. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, much appreciated. I was confused and thought it was all in Greek. Hope you had a good time when you were away. Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for advice about phrasing questions
Hi, Future Perfect. Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy—it has helped to clarify things to me. I am a little concerned, though, about your comment that my question involved "an exaggerated legalistic sense of logic". It was not my intention to come off as a wikilawyer, so that comment surprised me. Since I'd like to avoid making this kind of an impression in the future, could you explain to me which part of my question struck you as overly legalistic? Thanks! —Bkell (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

why did you delete the picture i uploaded?
it said NOTHING about copyrights. therefore it is a free to use picture. don't delete useful and high ev pics please--<span style="background-color: #75ab00; border:1.5px solid #bad57f; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size:80%;"> <font color="#f2ffd5">Someone35 <font color="#f2ffd5">(talk)  17:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a misunderstanding. In almost all jurisdictions today, any published work is assumed to be copyrighted by default, no matter whether it comes with an explicit copyright notice or not. This picture was from what appears to be a commercial news source, and attributed to a named photographer, so unless you are that photographer it's off limits to us. You also failed to add a description of its copyright status to the file. If you believed the file was in the public domain, it was your responsibility as the uploader to explain why this was the case, on the file description page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * how do i check what's the copyright license on a picture?
 * If it's under a free license such as Creative Commons, it usually says so explicitly somewhere on the same page, typically at the bottom where the copyright statements are, or on some websites it says so in a central place such as the site's "About..." or "Terms of use" page. If there's no statement at all, or only a standard "(C)" or "all rights reserved" note, you must assume it's non-free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ok, i'll look for it next time--<span style="background-color: #75ab00; border:1.5px solid #bad57f; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size:80%;"> <font color="#f2ffd5">Someone35 <font color="#f2ffd5">(talk)  12:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how to licence; please advise?
I apologize for the incorrect licencing on my DTE Energy Headquarters photographs. I have licensed them under Public Domain. I did not want to get in trouble with DTE for posting a building with their logo on it; I took the photographs, but I obviously do not own the rights to the building(s). If this is incorrect, please advise. Thank you.


 * Ah, thanks for clarifying this. I was wondering why you would have bothered with a non-free declaration first, but this explains it of course. As far as I understand, you needn't worry though, because there is "freedom of panorama" in the US, so making photographs of buildings isn't considered as infringing on the architect's rights (and the logo is not the central object of the photograph). In that case, I'd say we leave it at your public domain release. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:File permission problem with File:NaDa.png
Hey, Thanks for the notification, but it may not be what it seems. I'm the Assistant Manager of SK Gaming, which is the organization that has contracted the subject of the article and the service used to upload the picture. From an additional standpoint, I'm friends with the author of the image, so if there's any additional permissions, I'll speedily address it with her. Am I able to have the warning removed if I post our email conversation to your profile, or do I have to email Wikimedia, because I don't want to over-complicate something that should be so simple. D arth B otto talk•cont 02:09, 08 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The easiest and safest way will be if you e-mail the information to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org". I also notice something else: in some of your pictures, you have stated both that the picture is "free" ("public domain") and that it is "fair use". These two things are mutually exclusive, and a "fair use" declaration wouldn't work in these cases. If you can clarify the fully free license instead, could you please also remove the "fair use rationale" templates from the files? You could replace them with the Information template as I just did at File:NaDa.png, or move the description into a plain text paragraph without a template. Sorry for the trouble, but this is important to get the files categorized correctly. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Sun-free photovoltaics.jpg
I see that you have deleted File:Sun-free photovoltaics.jpg. I have clearly mentioned the appropriate licensing. Please enlighten me on what is wrong with this image, whose terms of use was provided here (please note point I.B.). Thanks. <font face="Vivaldi" color="red" size="4px">Suraj <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" color="blue" size="4px"> T 11:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Quoting from the website "sites wishing to use accompanying multimedia content (photos, video) may do so, provided the creator is cited in the MIT News caption. If no creator is cited, the multimedia content is not available for use." And as can be seen here, the creator was cited in the caption. Please clarify. <font face="Vivaldi" color="red" size="4px">Suraj <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" color="blue" size="4px"> T 11:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This is to inform you that I have requested assistance at Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks. <font face="Vivaldi" color="red" size="4px">Suraj <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" color="blue" size="4px"> T 12:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The licensing page you cited contains a general license only for electronic media, but restricts re-use in some other media, such as print news media ("Images may not be reproduced without prior approval from MIT News"). That unfortunately makes it "not free enough" for us, as we insist on free re-use in any medium and for any purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And it is clearly stated that "Images may not be reproduced without prior approval from MIT News" under the II. Print media section for B. News organizations. Not allowed here? <font face="Vivaldi" color="red" size="4px">Suraj <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" color="blue" size="4px"> T 12:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right that the license would allow us on Wikipedia to use them here. However, according to our own principles of being a free content encyclopedia, we accept material only if it is free not just for us but for everybody else also. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Should have known. Silly me. Thanks for responding. <font face="Vivaldi" color="red" size="4px">Suraj <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" color="blue" size="4px"> T 12:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Couldn't you just email them and ask for an exception? (Also you can just email the investigators involved, if they're not too busy). Generally they like favouring the public knowledge of science. <font color="#20A7E4">elle <font color="#d45477">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 00:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

File:JGQuin/JoelQuintel
Fine, what is the reason you keep deleting it? I have permission from the author! GrandTheftFreak (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to document that permission and say exactly what it was. In particular, we need evidence that the owner gave permission for use not only on Wikipedia, but also for use everywhere else, for any purpose, through an explicit statement similar to cc-by-sa ("Creative Commons [Attribution / ShareAlike]"). Please ask the owner to provide such a licensing statement either by e-mail to "permissions (at) wikimedia.org", or through an annotation on their own website (youtube or whatever it was). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I got the permission by messaging the owner on Youtube right before I uploaded it. Here's proof. http://i.imgur.com/EsT30.png
 * Okay, got it. I guess that should be okay for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So I can upload it? GrandTheftFreak (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC) --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright for photo
This is concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uyyalawada_Narasimha_Reddy.JPG

I already provided the source and the link to the website - Reddystrust.org http://reddystrust.org/Uyyalawada%20Narasimha%20Reddy.html. Because this would fall under PD-art category. Can you clarify what else is needed? Foodie 377 (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We need confirmation of the age and authorship of the actual painting, to confirm that PD-old actually applies. From the style of the painting, it looks quite modern. Actually, we need this information not merely for reasons of copyright, but also for reasons of proper encyclopedic information. Is this picture an authentic contemporary, portrait, is it based on one, is it based on an early photograph, or is it merely a later artist's imagination? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

re: removal of notices
I think most IPs and users can remove notices if they wish, but in certain circumstances (related to blocks/administrative actions) this ability is more limited, especially since the notices serve to inform others. Most user talk pages are for communication with the user, but certain IP talk pages are also for others who come across that IP. <font color="#20A7E4">elle <font color="#d45477">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 07:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Trouble causing image
You got that right, that image keeps causing trouble. Anyway I uploaded it to the Wikimedia Commons because I was prompted to do so. I think the image will be okay. GrandTheftFreak (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

BLPN discussion about ducks and some Greek fellow
Hi, just to let you know that you were mentioned (with some implausible-sounding accusations) at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion
Hey FPaS, hope you're well. A user has contested the deletion of a few files I deleted at User talk:Fastily. As the person who originally tagged the files for deletion, perhaps you'd like to comment? Best,  F ASTILY  (TALK) 03:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of the status of this image. I wasn't aware of all the conditions that had to be taken into account while uploading fair-use images. I have actually uploaded a couple of other images of deceased persons but I think those should be ok to use.-- <font color="#4B088A">R <font color="#5F04B4">a <font color="#8000FF">f <font color="#BE81F7">y  talk 13:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I actually also found File:Yonadam.jpg now (also a living individual), but the two others I see in your update log appear to be okay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Poulianos
Hello from Greek Wiki! Please take a look here there's a paragraph concerning you!. --Ttzavaras (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the heads-up. We had some of the same rants here, apparently, although I only noticed Mitch had been making such a fuss about the thing when I happened to visit el-wiki tonight. I just commented on our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hope (for your own health) you didn't have a look to the offenses written in Greek! --Ttzavaras (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Αυτά που έγραφε ο "Ελληνικος"; Αυτά τα είδα, αλλά φυσικά δεν έχουν σχέση με τον Μιτς. Κατάλαβες, υποθέτω, ότι ο "Ελληνικος" όπως και όλα τα IP που ασχολούνταν με τους μεγαλογράμματους κώδικες, ήταν ο παλιός μας φίλος ο User:Wikinger; ίσως θα'ταν καλύτερα να του βάλεις σφραγή επ'αόριστον. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * – Α, κάτσε, εννοούσες τις βρισιές του Μιτς; Λολ. Γηράσκω αεί διδασκόμενος. Το "ΚΑΘΗΚΙΑ, ΚΣΕΚΟΛΙΑΡΙΔΕΣ, ΚΑΡΓΙΟΛΙΔΕΣ ΤΖΙΤΖΙΟΦΙΟΓΚΟ" δεν το'ξερα ακόμη. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ναι αυτά εννοώ καλύτερα να μη τα έβλεπες, εκτός αν θέλεις να... βελτιώσεις τα ελληνικά σου επί του θέματος "Υβρεολόγιο". Εννοείται δεν τα μεταφράζω (!!! LOL). Βέβαια κατάλαβα ποιος ειναι - ο Ελληνικος έχει ήδη φραγή μιας ημέρας και το άρθρο κλειδώθηκε για το ίδιο χρονικό διάστημα (μια κι επενέβαινε και φραγμένος, ανώνυμα). Αν συνεχίσει ασφαλώς και θα φραγεί επ' αόριστον, έχω τις "συνεισφορές" του σε watch list. --Ttzavaras (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest ignoring the thread on the en.wiki BLPN, and letting it archive off (or letting someone else close it, if he keeps ranting.) No-one else seems to be interested, and rightly so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, my mistake, I'm just a little too naive. After declaring on BLPN that it was his final word, and that the next we would be hearing would be from UNESCO and the Greek Coastguard, and after declaring on my talkpage that he would no longer participate in Wikipedia because it infringed his first amendment rights (whatever that might count for in Greece), he's now gone ahead and started editing the article in question with some unsourced controversial info anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Images from User:Jacobdope
Hello!! I have uploaded two pictures - File:Cdmalar1.jpg and File:Tmalar.jpg (to both of them I own the rights) and they have been deleted. Can I ask why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobdope (talk • contribs)


 * You own the rights to them? File:Tmalar.jpg had a copyright mark from "mafiarecords.cz". It isn't yours, unless you are a representative of that company. In which case you actually should not be editing articles about your company's artists, by the way, but that's an independent matter. But you were also claiming you owned the rights to an album cover by Take That. Are you both the producer of Take That, and a representative of "mafiarecords.cz"? Somehow I doubt it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not representative of the company, but I have asked the singer to provide me some pictures and he said I can use them. Considering the Take That it was an accident...I was using the template and accidentaly ereased the album cover that was used before. It should be still uploaded on wikipedia, but because I'm new here I could not find it so I did my best to replace it...Once again..sorry about that. But back to the pictures. I have permission to use them and basically I've been given all the rights to exploit them, so why I cannot use them on wikipedia? (btw profile without picture looks really poor) jacobdope


 * We will need to check that the images were released under a fully free license, one that explicitly authorizes not just Wikipedia to use them, but also everybody else and for any other purpose. Can you forward such a statement from the author to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org" please? When you're done, I can restore the images. But you will also need to change to description pages to make the copyright declaration accurate and true. Don't say they are your own work when they're not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (BTW, technical hint: when you post on a discussion page, the best way to sign your posts is with four tildes ( ~ ), this will automatically turn into your username, with a link, and a timestamp. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll get the statement. ;-) ~
 * Heh. You were supposed to leave out the "nowiki" marks. They are just the escape mechanism meant to stop my use of the tildes from turning into my own signature. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

ok..got it (Jacobdope (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC))

Kalani Kokonuts
Kalani Kokonus won the price of "Wold Queen of Burlesque" in 2009. --REDTURTLE 12:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll leave you to work out whether that is a title that conveys any actual amount of real-world notability on her. No idea how notable that award itself is. But in any case, you need to get a reliable source for that statement. And you need to get rid of the non-free images. Didn't you see the big red tag that appeared on the image pages, telling you why you can't use them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Odd. I left him a notice saying he should leave edit summaries (which he never seems to do) and he responded at my talk page first with "and the same to you" and then with a notice saying I should leave edit summaries. This after I added a source to his Kokonuts article (but did, twice, remove 'sumptuous' - from a description of the shows I hasten to add, not Kokonuts). Someone else left him a note about an image a few minutes ago. Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Make file uploading a separable userright
I've voiced my comments before regarding your proposed userright at the village pump, and I'll say once more that I'm in support of the plan. However the thread seems to be nearing the top of the proposal's page and will soon be thrown into the archives in a few days. I'm kinda trying to save the discussion from being lost into oblivion, but do you think further steps should be taken to implement your proposal, or you'd prefer to ignore it? At the latest count, there were 8 supports, 6 opposes, and one comment that seemed to lean towards neutral. I'd like to know your opinion at this stage. &mdash;Terrence and Phillip 11:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the update. Yeah, it's a bit of a pity it seems to have lost traction a bit, but the way it stands now it doesn't really look like overwhelming support, does it? I'm not sure what to do to refresh the debate. There seems to be a subpage for "persistent proposals" (not to be confused with that for the "perennial" ones), which is meant to keep threads alive and save them from auto-archiving. Should we move it there? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not? I think there should've been more attention to the discussion, but some people are hesitant about adding new user groups to the project, hence the majority of the opposes. Maybe you should modify the policy to compromise with some of the opposition, such as making the policy more stricter about who gets the flag, and when to remove it. &mdash;Terrence and Phillip 21:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Kostas Novakis
Hello, as the Previous Admin looking at this issue would you please be chime in. As the talk-page makes clear, it is obvious the whole notion of this person's identity/actions are completely unbelievable for some users. Lunch for Two (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Again, I am just messaging you to see if you can take a look at this edit in regards to Kostas Novakis and . Thank you. Lunch for Two (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, FutPerf, I was just coming here with the same request, actually. Comments like this are greatly worrisome to me, as they seem to me to betray a blatant nationalistic POV, but as Nipson's referring to a Greek source I can't read, it's hard for me to be sure. If you haven't got time, I understand, but I wanted to see if you might be able to help. Many thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. I was sort of waiting for that situation to explode. Basically, what we have here is two editors who are about equally bad; if you want to swing the ARBMAC hammer on both of them, feel free. Nipson is a POV hardliner and one of the most overtly unreasonable editors I've encountered in the area; the way he kept ranting that it was "preposterous" to even suggest that a Slavic Macedonian ethnicity exists marks him as little more than a POV vandal (because he of course knows that in the English language the ethnicity in question is called just that; he just doesn't want it to be the case, and is trying to make Wikipedia fit the way he wants the world to be rather than the way the world actually is; that's the definition of POV vandalism.) Lunch, in turn, is most likely a recently reincarnated sock of sorts; my money's on, but I couldn't be bothered to file an ISP yet. -- As for the subject question, the question of how to describe the ethnicity of the guy is a rather thorny one, and I'm not saying either editor is completely in the wrong. As for the language, the only reliable source we seem to have about the guy, this Eleftherotypia article, is describing the songs as being in "Slavomacedonian", while at the same time it is quoting Novakis himself, in a literal quotation, where he is describing them as being "in Macedonian" (a rather bold statement for a Greek newspaper!) Of course, both descriptions refer to the same entity, the language we here on Wikipedia call Macedonian along with all the rest of the English-speaking world. Nipson's objections draw on the old fallacy (often exploited by POV warriors) of mixing up the requirements of sourcing facts with the requirements for sourcing naming choices. Individual reliable sources are used for sourcing facts about things. However, the choice of what name to use to refer to those things is one that we don't make on the basis of just that one source, but on the basis of the whole "common usage in English" argument, which relies on the totality of all sources in English. (To give an example: we might use an individual source that says a certain event happened "in Peking", but still in our article we would render the same fact as saying it happened "in Beijing", without any violation of WP:V. Same here: the source is used to establish the fact that there are sources in language X. We know that "Macedonian" and "Slavomacedonian" are well-established synonyms referring to the same real-world entity, language X. Which of these terms we use in the article is our own choice, based on our own principles and policies (ultimately relying on what the majority of English does), and we are not bound to any particular decision made by Eleftherotypia or anybody else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that confirms my assessment of Nipson, much as I thought. As for Lunch, that's beyond my knowledge at this point. I'm not sure if the community would be all that keen with my wielding the ARBMAC hammer myself what with my past involvement with the Greece-Macedonia dispute, though. Maybe it would be best for me monitor the situation and, if needed, to bring it to AE and get someone else to do the honours. My main content concern at this point is Nipson's changing the language the songs are in to say "Slavic", as that's not even a language. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Logged a notice for you
Hello FP. Please see my entry of the ARBMAC notice that you gave to in March, 2010. I could not find it in the log of either ARBMAC or ARBMAC2 (and I'm not actually sure where the notices get put these days). EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Unconstructive editing
Would you look into Armenian Highland? Please see my comment here, and according to the article history more IPs appear to be involved. Maybe a page protection is due. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Remove an image
Can you please remove File:Carstf3.jpg so I can use the one I've uploaded on Wikimedia commons? Since the one uploaded here (previous) is "copyrighted" and sourced on another website. Fanaction2031 (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the new one isn't useable either, because the license on the Flickr source is "non-commercial only". Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Fanaction2031 (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing images
I take strong exception to you deleting images on the articles for Wendy Walsh and Andrew P. Ordon and threatening to ban me from editing for no good reason. These images have been donated by the subjects in question specifically for Wikipedia and are NOT copyrighted in any sense. If you have a problem with the way I'm tagging them, please say so; I have no problem making corrections. But don't just make assumptions that they're copyrighted if you can't back up your claims. Faustus37 (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You claimed these images were your own work. Which was obviously false, as you have now confirmed yourself. Therefore, my deletion was correct. You also continued the same style of uploads after you were warned. Bad idea. I also strongly doubt your claim that they are "not copyrighted in any sense" -- they remain copyrighted even if the owners licensed them for our use, except in the unlikely case that they explicitly released them into the public domain. Please note also that a license "specifically for Wikipedia" is not enough for us. We need a fully free license, explicitly allowing free re-use by anybody else for any purpose, such as an explicit release under cc-by-sa. It is your responsibility to provide proof of such a license. In the absence of such proof, I indeed must "assume" that they are fully protected by copyright. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Then how would they go about giving that fully free license? I assure you that can be arranged. I'm well aware of the free license requirements. I've been here over six years and edited over 5,000 times. I'm not new to this by any means. A quick look at my contribution record will confirm that. What I'm sketchy on is how to document it. I'm not looking for conflict. I'm looking for answers. In the absence of answers I'm forced to guess on the coding, which is what I did. Faustus37 (talk) 06:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't find the exact page where the whole process is described, so I'll summarize here (I assume that the file is not online at some webpage):
 * upload the image to wikipedia/commons
 * put in the description that you are awaiting permission via OTRS
 * send the copyright holder the email text in Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries (you want to fill-in yourself the requisite data), telling him to send the text to permissions-enwikimedia.org (if you uploaded the image to English Wikipedia) or permissions-commonswikimedia.org (if you uploaded to commons). He can simply forward your email and it will be accepted.
 * wait for the person to send the email, and a OTRS volunteer will eventually process the email and tag the image with a OTRS ticket number.
 * If the image is already online in a website, then you can ask first for permission, then upload the image once you are given a OTRS ticket number. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Much obliged. That helps. Faustus37 (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

IP block evasion
. seems fairly stable and currently appears to be used exclusively by this editor, so worth blocking. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll withdraw that. While it is block evasion, he's jumped to another IP again, and there is now an active RFC/U against La goutte de pluie in which I'd like to hear the IP present evidence. As long as it doesn't devolve into personal attacks, I think it might be too dangerous (collateral damage) to keep blocking the jumping IP addresses. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notification
Just to let you know that I have quoted you in conjunction with an arbitration case at. Please feel free to suggest any corrections if you feel that I have misquoted you. I should add that the editor concerned is claiming that you were acting to protect another admin, which you may have some views about. Prioryman (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Lion King (Musical)
Why did you remove the reference I just added to the Lion King (musical) page regarding participation by the Las Vegas cast and crew? Clearly they did participate. Clearly their photos are in the gallery. I found them easily enough by visiting the photo documentary gallery and added the information to the page. I also included an image of Buyi Zaman (Rafiki) in the entry. I think I saw something mentioned about "recently added promotion," though I'm not clear why. Steinway1701 (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You have been adding these kinds of sections to far too many articles, basically amounting to a spam campaign promoting that project. I very much doubt participation in this project is such an important aspect of the life and work of any of the people and companies in question that it needs to be mentioned in their own article, certainly not as prominently as here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I just finished the I Am Equal Photo Documentary page. Another administrator added a tag to the top of the page and said to add connections to the article. Since the Lion King cast, Starbucks, RBC, Jabawokeez and other groups and individuals participated in the project, it's only natural that information would be added to their pages. It's not "promoting" when I am following the standard linking policy between Wikipedia entries. I would like to think that these additions are considered topical rather than SPAM.

Why did you remove the reference I just added to the Chelsea Handler page regarding her participation in the I Am Equal Photo Documentary? Clearly she did participate. her photo and story on the front page of the project website (http://www.iamequalproject.org) and she just posted about it on her Facebook page. Clearly her photo are in the gallery. I found it easily enough by visiting the photo documentary gallery and added the information to her page. I just finished the I Am Equal Photo Documentary page and since another administrator added a tag to the top of the page and said to add connections to the article I thought it important to get it on her page. Since the Lion King cast, Starbucks, RBC, Jabawokeez and other groups and individuals participated in the project, it's only natural that information would be added to their pages. It's not "promoting" when I am following the standard linking policy between Wikipedia entries. I would like to think that these additions are considered topical rather than SPAM. Just because I added a new article and created appropriate links to associated articles does not mean that it is SPAM. I hate to think that now I am going to have to go back through all my work and see if you deleted it because of "Spam".
 * In fact, you don't need to go back through all your work to check if I deleted it. I can tell you right away: I did. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You deleted these entries because I updated several articles with similar references to their participation in the I Am Equal Photo Documentary? That doesn't make sense. The information is accurate and relevant to the article. In fact, If Chelsea had not personally posted about her involvement in the documentary project, I don't think I would have thought to add it to her page to begin with. I feel that this information should be replaced on her page. It's my intention to get more information about her involvement with the Autism community and LGBT issues and add them to her article as well.

I'm sure there must be another option for addressing concerns of SPAM, rather than just unilaterally deleting the content. Clearly you have gone through ALL the pages I updated today and removed the content regarding the I Am Equal Photo Documentary but you seem to have missed the fact that the documentary page is new and thus...there will be a pile of new associated links related to it. I am confused by why you would choose to delete the content when it's very clear that ALL of the entries are accurate and corroborated by the mere fact that there are photos of each and every one of the listed participants. I, and other readers/fans of these individuals, groups, and organizations would appreciate it if you would please return the references to their proper place. Steinway1701 (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem you have taken in the reason for deletion I gave you in my very first response here on this page. By the way, there's no need to open a new section each time you post. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I want to be clear on what we're talking about, so I keep my conversations threaded. And, regarding your "reason" I was under the impression that you deleted the information as "promotion." Unfortunately, that is not applicable here because these references are being added due to the fact that the documentary article was created today and thus, requires additions to the associated articles. I will be adding all the references back because I feel they are relevant to the articles.Steinway1701 (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And your inference that they are not significant to the participants and thus not warranting mention on their articles is a bit odd, since, Chelsea Handler mentioned the project on her Facebook page yesterday, many of the Lion King cast have the photo as their profile picture, Starbucks is (confirmed by the documentary project) planning another photo event for corporate employees in September, the Jabbawokeez have just recently submitted a "PhotoStory" to the documentary website to discuss their causes...shall I go on. I didn't make this page out of whimsy or fancy, but because it is a real and legitimate project that is building momentum around the world. These are not incidental references to a project that barley exists, but rather to a culturally significant campaign that is picking up momentum and national attention. The mere fact that these individuals and corporations participated in the project is noteworthy in itself. I thought it important enough to search Wikipedia for information, and upon not finding any, did the research, created the article, and added the references...exactly what this site is all about. You may not find it to be significant, but I know these participants do, and I as a fan do too. I'd appreciate it if you would restore the entries back to how they were.Steinway1701 (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

ROTK images
I have taken note of the fact that you have placed those images up for deletion. I also see that you conveniently did not alert my attention to it like you did to the other uploaders from years ago. That said, its not a big deal. I don't really mind if they are removed, since I was just trying to improve the articles. So the reason why I am messaging you is to let you know that you forgot about the picture on the Pang De article.

Edit: There are also pictures from that series on the following pages: Yuan Shao, Lu Bu, Yuan Tan, Zhang Jue, Zhang Xiu, Pang Tong, and Xu Chu. I will let you know if I find any others, but I scanned most of the major pages. --Turner1987 (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is one on the Zhao Yun page too. I just found it. --Turner1987 (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Eddie1Kanobi
He's back and the target is the same article as usual. Btw I'm trying to make a very simple point here about the translation of terms and precision and I didn't expect that the reply would include remarks about my ... competence.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

More block evasion?
See Special:Contributions/202.156.13.232. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Island
P.S. Which one is more common, Lefkada or Lefkas ? Takabeg (talk) 05:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * PS2 If you have time, please control these national POV pushing edits. Takabeg (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Bulgarians in Albania
Hi Fut. Perf., I am just informing you of the discussion going on at Bulgarians in Albania. I believe that the situation is near identical to that which predated the formation of Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. It would be good to have a third party opinion in the discussion. Lunch for Two (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Where can I take my concerns with the behaviour in question (I think you know what I mean). Is a request for intervention the best idea? Thanks. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"a campaign of state-sponsored discrimination" ?
Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise. When you have time, could you control Talk:Imbros and Talk:Tenedos? Is this expression is appropriate and encyclopedic for neutral encyclopedia ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of User Hisakazu_HAYASHI
Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hisakazu_HAYASHI#August_2011 Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Lifting EEML interaction bans
I've been discussing on some user talk pages the possibility that interaction bans between Russavia and some other editors could be lifted. The most obvious case is between Russavia and Tammsalu. (They are both high volume editors and their usual editing interests may cause them to run into each other on a wide variety of EE topics). A 1RR would apply to both parties when editing a 'shared' article but they would be free to interact otherwise. My thinking was that this could be a trial run and if it didn't work, topic bans might be the next step. (The AE thread which inspired this brainstorm is still visible at WP:AE). Arbcom would need to approve this. I'd be interested on whether you think this is a good idea. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably it is. Interaction bans are fine with people who are locked in purely inter-personal conflict, but they just don't work for people with narrowly intertwined content editing interests. Telling people that "yes, you can both edit the same topics and even the same articles, but you mustn't interact with each other while doing so" has been a recipe for disaster. The interaction bans in this case have certainly been creating more new problems than they have helped to avoid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * FPaS, please refer to User_talk:Russavia for, well, my thoughts on the issue. You are right that it is hard to say one can edit anything, but then not be able to interact. The problem in the past has generally been the commenting on editors, rather on content. Therefore, a stipulation that only "content" interactions would be allowed by any amendment that we may pursue is, in my opinion, needed. Could you possibly find the time to give some input in regards to what I have written, as it would obviously be preferable to have a bit of input from various admins in helping to work out a solution that we can take to amendment with the committee. Cheers, --Russavia Let's dialogue 17:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 02:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

PEB Picture Deleted
Hi. Can you explain why the PEB pictures were deleted (in terms of copyrights) and what I can do to get them up without them being removed? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOLD (talk • contribs)


 * These pictures were taken from the company's website, so they are copyrighted, and unless you are the owner of PEB Steel company, you are not entitled to put your own license on them. If you were given permission to use them by the company, you need to provide proof of it, demonstrating that the owners actually meant to release them for fully free re-use anywhere. Short of providing such proof, there is nothing you can do to use them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am Adib Kouteili, the Director of PEB Steel. My e-mail is adib@pebsteel.com.vn. What do I need to do to get permission for those photos/can you put them back?
 * Could you then please send a brief e-mail containing something like "I am releasing these images under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license" to our copyright service at "permissions-en" (at) "wikimedia.org"? Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Done. What do I do now? I'd like to get those pictures up again.
 * Thanks, and sorry if I put you under a wrong suspicion (unfortunately we get a lot of crappy uploads and have to be watchful.) I'll provisionally restore the pics with a note that confirmation from the e-mail team is pending. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. If you would like, I can forward the e-mail I sent so that you can be sure I have permission to use the photos. Regards, Adib. Just so you are aware, I would like to upload just a few more photos of our projects (from our website once again) for use in the company page.

User:Jingiby
Hello FP. I'm looking at WP:AE.



Some reasons for being strict would be: Do you think there are good arguments for a six month topic ban from the articles covered by ARBMAC? EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * User has been blocked for one year in the past. However the blocking admin was User:Moreschi, an admin who was sometimes quick on the draw. Should we have confidence that there were good grounds for that block?
 * The very frequent appearance of Jingiby's name in the ARBMAC log of blocks and bans. We don't have a three-strikes policy, but the repeat violations suggest there is no learning curve.


 * Well, I'm the complaining party in this case, so I'm obviously not disinterested. I did some of the ARBMAC sanctions against him myself, but I have recently become involved in direct content disputes with him to an extent that's of course no longer possible. For what it's worth, I do believe the previous sanctions were justified, including the one-year one, and yes, it's a bit of a "leopard-can't-change-his-spots" situation. He is opinionated, he is given to WP:COATRACKing, he is fixated on certain ideological issues over Macedonia (although I must recognize he has also sometimes had a useful effect in helping to curb POV-pushing from other quarters), and there is something of a "competence" issue, because his English is poor, which limits his capacity of constructively negotiating NPOV niceties. I think the recent kerfuffle exemplifies all of these problems.
 * But I am generally not a friend of topic bans defined as widely as "everything covered by ARBMAC". ARBMAC is huuuuuge. The Balkans are a big place, and they are full of very diverse conflicts. If you have a bee in your bonnet about just one of them, it needn't mean you couldn't contribute about the next. I'd tailor any sanctions to just "Macedonian-Bulgarian issues", that's his bête noire. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my request here. Can you add anything more about recent problems from Jingiby? Otherwise, we seem to be at risk of closing this case with a long sanction based on a record that only includes a single 3RR violation in all of 2011. Maybe there are other articles where you believe he has not followed consensus?  If there is trouble from more than one party, perhaps we need some article-level 1RRs, or maybe Jingiby himself should be under a personal 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)