Jump to content

User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 7: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Yannismarou (talk | contribs)
Wikiproject Greece May 2007 newsletter
Rex Germanus (talk | contribs)
User:Matthead (AGAIN)
Line 414: Line 414:


Thank you (and enjoy your wikibreak!).--[[User:Yannismarou|Yannismarou]] 20:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you (and enjoy your wikibreak!).--[[User:Yannismarou|Yannismarou]] 20:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

== [[User:Matthead]] (AGAIN) ==

{{User|Matthead}} is, once again, looking for trouble and once again is making my contributions to Wikipedia harder, or impossible. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Matthead His recent edits] are exemplary. He provides no edit summaries whatsoever (well besides "reverting to") despite making enormous changes (reverts that is) to articles. For example; he moved [[Imperial immediacy]] back to [[Reichsfreiheit]], eventhough "''Imperial immediacy''" is the term used in English. He moved [[Blood Court]] back to [[Blutgericht]] eventhough "blood court" is the English term, and the 2 articles on wikipedia about specific "''blood courts''" use (suprisingly) ... "''blood courts''". Apart from reverting these edits just because they're mine, he has also (once again) thrown himself onto conflicts with Polish contributors/articles. Now, I will have to go through all the wikipedia red tape concerning moving articles. As now the article move got "''controversial''" because that idiot want to irritate people. Do something about this. [[User:Rex Germanus|Rex]] 21:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:06, 31 May 2007

Archive
Archives
  1. – July 2006
  2. – October 2006
  3. – November 2006
  4. – January 2007
  5. – 12 March 2007
  6. – 5 May 2007

Illyrian article

You are really pissing me off, what right do u have to change the history of a Nation, why I am the only one who get warning.Trojani 06:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

MR Admin

Why dont you make efforts to read somthing about the situation in the Balkans before you try to edit my version: THE QUESTION OF ILLYRIAN-ALBANIAN CONTINUITY AND ITS POLITICAL TOPICALITY TODAY (dr Alexandar Stipcevic University of Zagreb)Trojani 18:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure

I'll take a look. - Francis Tyers · 16:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

Hello,

This post concerns the recent blocks on Transnistria, especially that of User:EvilAlex. One the talk page you said that Arbcom has been informed about all the blocks. Has this been done publicly? If yes, can you point me to the Wikipedia page where you informed Arbcom of the blocks?

Thanks, Dpotop 09:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

They are all listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence#Evidence presented by Fut.Perf.. By the way, please don't reintroduce plagiaristic (i.e. copyvio) elements in Marius' "sandbox" page, as you did here ([1]). Fut.Perf. 09:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts to improve my sandbox. The best place to discuss improvements is sandbox's talk page, where I already answered to some of your concerns. I added a refference as result of your suggestions, when I will have time I will look more in details in order to eliminate any accusation of OR. You can check also Igor Smirnov article from Wikipedia, some info you labeled as OR are there (and not added by me).--MariusM 17:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

From Trojani

I am not sure if i am supposed to wright on this page, anyhow i would like to raise concern in regards to the origin of Alexander the Great. In the article ther is no mention about his Illyrian origin, i have more than 27 ( [Alexander the Great http://alexanderthegreat.wordpress.com/]sources that suggest that his was at leat part Illyrian (mothers side). I woule like to have your opinion on the issue.Regards Trojani 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

CoI

Due to our prior unpleasant interactions, I would prefer if you would refrain from involving yourself in disputes that do not directly deal with our own interactions, namely the image dispute. It is because of these prior interactions that I feel that you cannot really be all that impartial where it concerns me. there are more than enough admins who can weigh in without you feeling the need to do so. Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear FPaS, An anon user vandalized that page many times.Please take an action.Regards.Must.T C 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Pirin Macedonia

user:TodorBozinov and user:Gligan try to setup me with 3RR in Pirin Macedonia article. This is not fair on wikipedia. Pirin Macedonia should exist as different article not to be redirected to Blagoevgrad Province article. If there is no need for separate article then there is no need for redirection also.--Brest 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll go help them. NikoSilver 20:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Tsk tsk, evil. People watching my page like hawks ;-) -- Brest, I'm not sure, are you asking me for my opinion as an editor, or for my intervention as an admin? Admin-wise, if they are "setting you up" with 3RR, you should definitely avoid going into the trap, because you know what the consequences will be... -- as for the matter itself, I'll drop a few words on the talkpage. Fut.Perf. 20:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Niko, do you also sell hats? I lost one the other day. Fut.Perf. 20:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fut, would appreciate your input here. Dispute over how a statement by the UN SG should be presented in the history. Greek pov wants his full statement as taken from a Republic of Cyprus report, I want it paraphrased with a counter pov. I am being accused of suppressing sources by reducing the size of the statement (I dont think a large quote should be dominating what is otherwise a concise history of the conflict), yet they dont have any trouble deleting my source entirely without question. Cheers, --A.Garnet 20:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors involved: Niko, Aristov, Pluto + some sock/meat puppets. Makalp has been the only one reverting to my version (with his own additions). --A.Garnet 20:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Sorry, but I'm not sure I can tackle Cyprus right now. With Transnistria and Macedonia all in a single evening... :-( --Fut.Perf. 21:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Tommorow maybe? --A.Garnet 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Good historians north of Florina

Wie gehts? Droped some stuff at Niko's, you may wish to look [2]. It is just the tip of the iceberg I have been collecting. ps. I thought the cyprus thing was solved-at least on the ground Politis 15:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

cuneiform

please see my reply. I am pretty convinced we can keep them, arguing "fair use, if not public domain". dab (𒁳) 16:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you closed out Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Captain Waters/band, as delete, but have not deleted the page. Oversight? — xaosflux Talk 23:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK, happy mopping. I'm out of town and on dial-up, or I'd happily help out. — xaosflux Talk 02:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Go have a look there; I know you're good in finding a peaceful way to stop such a state of confusion. Crvst 04:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you had a look a at Greek War of Independence? Each one reverts the massacres of the other, a.s.o. ... ad infinitum. Crvst 16:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. I had hoped that problem would go away without my intervention somehow... :-\ Fut.Perf. 16:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

problem with uncooperative new editor

This user has already broken 3RR (last stand, Battle of the Persian Gate), displayed unvicil behaviour and instigated rv-warring in his first day of editing [3]. I'm not sure what I should do. Obviously can't report him under 3RR. I've already cited all the policies, including 3RR but he's not very interested. I think he needs to hear it from someone else other than myself. Thanks. Miskin 20:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Apostolos Margaritis' archive

But where's the archive? Crvst 14:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Talk page history

I was wondering; I've noticed that there isn't any real edit history of your Talk Page after you archive. I thought that all pages retain a complete edit history of edits. How have you removed this history? Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two techniques of archiving: either you archive by cutting and pasting the contents into the archive page, in which case the edit history remains at the original page; or you archive by moving the whole original page to a new name in the archives, in which case the edit history is stored as part of the archive page. Both techniques have their pros and cons. I've been using the second technique. HTH, Fut.Perf. 15:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thanks or the quick reply. While I am at it, is there any way for an admin to remove a post from an article? I am not asking for an admin to do this, but to deterimin if such is possible. Hypothetical: an admin wants to remove a particular post. Can the admin remove the article trace of it along with their history of having removed it? Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a thing called selective undeletion, yes. You can delete a page and then undelete only selected edits from its history. It's sometimes done for technical reasons in article space, for instance to allow for page moves, or on talk pages in order to erase violations of privacy, serious harassment or the like. Evidence of that would still be found in the admin's log, and other admins can still see the deleted edits. In very serious cases things can be expunged completely, through Wikipedia:Oversight. Fut.Perf. 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm still looking for Apostolos Margaritis' archive page; perhaps, you could help me find it? Crvst 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Wait a sec, yes, it seems something was misplaced there. Fut.Perf. 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Aha... I can't help but wonder what that could be. Crvst 16:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Help!

Hi! I don't know who to address to so I'm writing to you. A specific guest edits the Euroleague article every day, so many times, adding the same material and making the article a dedication to the team he supports. He is reluctant to discuss it, he just goes on vandalising the article. I don't know what to do apart from reverting it 20 times per day. Can you help with me this? I don't know..locking it for the guests or anything... Thank you! - Sthenel 22:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I know but obviously I'm the only one these days who watch this article..thanks! Sthenel 08:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you locked the article while he had edited it. Someone told me that his contribution is not blatant POV and I should try to discuss with him, while I've said that this person doesn't want to discuss anything, he is a guest and he doesn't care. Anyway.. - Sthenel 08:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As a guest, he doesn't mind discussing anything. I tried to start a conversation in the talk page for his edits but he ignored it. He was only interested in removing from the introduction the line about the most successful team in the competition (Real Madrid) and adding a statistic record for his favourite team (Panathinaikos) which is based on an unreliable source (how can a team have an attendance record of 20,000 people, which is supposed to be based on the saled tickets, while the stadium is of 18,000 seats?). The record does exist but I asked him to find a source with the exact attendance at that game instead of using Panathinaikos site which exaggerates.. Some days ago he added the records of his team in the opening paragraph too. That's all. So, if I'm wrong again, ok... - Sthenel 20:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

300 Images

Are you suggesting that if the text were to more accurately describe a situation that the picture detailed, the reasoning for maintaining the image s would become stronger? You will forgive me for not understanding you more completely here. Are you suggesting that a specific citation for each image, describing the image's place within Plot/Production/etc. would resolve a number of these issues? Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Btw, nice source. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that we are getting somewhere here. A good night's sleep (and not having to deal with a brown-nosing childish clown in an unrelated matter combined with the normal difficulties of a mobile workplace - I am in disaster management) have served to help me calm down a bit. I don't think I own any page, but it was all very frustrating to have folk come in and manhandle the situation as poorly as had happened. A confluence of factors, I guess - one that we should try to move past. I will work on the text tonight and tomorrow (I will be traveling back from Kansas today, and my presence here today will be spotty), and we can work together to knock out something that can maybe serve as a good implementation of what is 'okay' in accordance to the new policy interpretation. I don't know what time zone you are in (I am in UTC-5 = US Central Standard), I will endeavor to work in tandem with you to make it work. I think it can work. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Something I am concerned about is an issue that Erik brought up about the relevance of the image to the storyline. The plot synopsis is not really a place to provide citation, and this would rather suggest that the plot section - in accordance to the new application - cannot sustain any images, whereas production would have two or three all by itself (and Depiction of Persians would have one). This seems unbalanced to me. I am wondering how an image with a brief, cited quote as a caption would hold up - ie, would the text of the article have to say it in immediate proximity to the article, or is it enough that the image is directly referenced with in the article with an (see image, above) descriptor - or would it have to be mentioned within the proximal text? Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

problem

There's a serious, serious need for your participation in Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate. If for some reason you can't participate then say so, but please don't ignore me. Miskin 15:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please help to prevent vandalism on Erich Maria Remarque page. Thaks in advance Shmuliko 15:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed naming conventions for Republic of Macedonia

Hi FPaS,

I'd be grateful if you could have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Republic of Macedonia-related articles), which is intended to establish a consistent basis for naming RoM-related articles across Wikipedia. I'd appreciate your views on it. -- ChrisO 19:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Massacres in the Greek war of independence

You already "wiki-censured" one article about the subject and you now ignoring all the vandalisms that has been going on in the main article and in the new article. At least dont claim yourself to be neutral and stop wandering around giving lessons of morality.. Btw, the main reason for the deletion of the article was its being POVfork right? Now i have rights to include well sourced documents to the new article in which Alexius try to keep imposing his nationalist point of views...--laertes d 22:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to take a look at the "Massacres in the Greek Revolution Article"? Laertes will simply not stop messing with the article, and the only discussion he seems willing to be having is asserting that his version is better and reverting without any sort of consensus. Apparently banning him does not accomplish anything as he just returns to his old tricks in after the ban expires. AlexiusComnenus 02:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexius stop your childish, silly, little games nobody is buying them, it is because people dont want massacres being mentioned and thats why nobbody is doing anything about you, not that you really convince people..You keep deleting sourced material and yet accusing me of vandalism..--laertes d 10:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun. It has been closed early after a confusing and IMO unfortunate sequence of events. I have now listed it on Deletion Review. You may wish to express your views there. DES (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic groups infobox

Regarding the prolonged discussion about the ethnic groups infobox, I'm wondering if it would be possible to place a small note directly on 'related groups'? Something like 'It has been proposed that this section of the infobox be removed, see discussion'. Ling.Nut insists that removing 'related groups' would require gaining consensus on all ethnic group articles.--Nydas(Talk) 06:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

user:NisarKand is back again...

Hello again Fut.Perf. I hope you are doing well. I am not though, because the banned user: NisarKand is back again spreading his POVs and racism on Wiki. His new sockpuppet is User:Birdazi, just looking at his user page will show that he is a spammer. Most of his current activities are on the Taliban article. If you could please take a look at his edits on that article and his discussions you can clearly see he is once again spreading ethno-natinalist POVs as well as making racist remarks to others. Please if you can RV all his edits, I would do that but my RV is limited. Or even better, if you can please ban him again. Thanks a ton in advance. --Behnam 04:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry again, but after you banend that one, he made yet another sockpuppet: user:Tajirk. And as you can see, he is expressing his racist feelings towards Tajiks with his username. Worst of all, he is making very ridiculous edits once again. So please if you can once again RV his edits and also please ban this sockpuppet as well. Thanks alot, much appreciated. --Behnam 19:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
After you banned that one he is now back with another, User:Babajee. I think he should keep getting banned until he gets the message that he is banned. --Behnam 02:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
He now stopped using that one and is using this one: User:Haleemi. Also, can you please put a protection on the [[Afghanistan] article and also the Pashtun people article? Thanks. --Behnam 15:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
He keeps making sockpuppets, he now uses user: Maria Tahoo. I think an even better idea would be to Semi protect all the articles he edits. 2 of them have already been Semi protected, which is great and thanks alot for that. But here are a few more and then he would be gone for good: Hamid Karzai and also if you could please do all the Provinces of Afghanistan. Thanks alot. --Behnam 18:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


Actually, if you could simply please Semi-Protect the following articles he would be gone for good.

Thanks in advance. --Behnam 02:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

He is back again under User:USA Ali baba (he says he is from Herat but he is not, he is NisarKand from Kandahar) and attacking the article Tajiks with ridiculous vandalism. If you could block him that would be good. Thanks --Behnam 02:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The Miskin "case"

I couldn't but notice your silence on this and this. Willing to share an opinion or... ? Duja 11:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My "Sandbox"

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise, Thank you for your observation. Unfortunately, I am now very busy in real life, and do not have time to update and finish many elementary tasks that I wanted to do on WP. I was intruiged by the content of the former article out of sheer curiousity, and wanted to read it, and see whether it might contain some useful links or info. But because the theme does not interest me much, and because I do not have time for WP even without it, I have only read the first 2-3 paragraphs, and coppied the rest, in such a way that only me can see it and can read it when I will have time. (the page does not even link to my user page - it simply links to nothing, it is temporary until i finish reading it) My whole intent was to read and understand it, and bit by bit to erase what I think is redundant. I think maybe 3-4 sentences out of 100 maybe useful in some articles, but maybe 0 - But I don't know yet, because I did not read that yet. So, could you, please, wait until I finish reading it to know what we are talking about, and be sure, I am not going to keep it more than that. I will let you know when I am done. :Dc76 11:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. my personal oppionion is that the user pages can contain anything, but of course "on a temporary basis", only until the material is "worked through" - and provided clear indications on that page are given that this is a working material. For example, a simple copy of an already deleted article wouldn't be fine, b/c it would have a title etc, but a partial and temorary copy of some passages, provided they will be worked on -shouln't be a problem. what do you think?

Buffadren = Des Grant —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.243.232.122 (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I am sorry. I made a confusion, and I appologized to the user. :Dc76 21:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the link. Sorry for pushing you, but I am following this article for a long time now, and I can only see what a few determined puppet masters can do in manipulating information and other users (I don't know if you were there for the nice astro-turfing attempt of last year). In the last 6 months, the situation seemed to clarify a bit, with Mauco and MarkStreet (which I saw as the main manipulators) uncovered as puppet masters (Bonaparte, on the other side, has been banned for good a long time ago). Dpotop 10:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The material you asked me to read and delete if not used

Hi, I have gone (not thouroughly) through the material that I coppied from a former MariusM's (now deleted or in controversy, I guess) user page. Whatever happens with MariusM's userpage is another question, and frnakly I don't have time and disire to get more involved in that.

But, I have taken the text, and read it, and whatever was not clear junk or poor English, I have slightly editted, and then put into Media in Transnistria. I hope people would read and edit it there. And especially I hope they will check all sourses (I didn't except a few). I believe that is the proper place of that material. What form, what edit, I hope others will help to determine.

There remains the last issue, that of the popular expression "Heaven of Transnistria". I have kept this, but it seems too long to me. So, I hope input from others. Best regards, :Dc76 17:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this our blocked friend Laertes_d (talk · contribs)? NikoSilver 09:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So... when it is Turks that get slaughtered, nobody is supposed to talk about it, or to write about it; and there isn't a damn thing that a Turk can do to discard the marked cards that he has been dealt.--Alperkaan 10:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes he can. The first thing he should do is adhere to the rules set by the majority. FP, should we file an SSP or an RFCU? NikoSilver 10:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Can this wait a bit? I'm busy with the Transnistrians. I'm not sure this guy is a sock, at first sight. Fut.Perf. 10:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You are naive, sir, if you really believe that your version of history is so close to the Truth that it cannot have more than a single opponent.--Alperkaan 11:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Niko, youre the one who ıs usıng trickery methods now are you accusing me of such thıngs? I dont have anythıng to do wıth the user Alperkaan. We're talkıng about the events virtually every sıngle historıan mentıoned about yet we can neıther open a separete topıc about ıt, nor can we include necessary materıals ınto two relevant topics..You shuld thank to the admınıstrators sınce they are allowıng you to impose your natıonalist point of vıews ın the relevant topıcs--laertes d 11:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an official warning that I take issue with the ad hominem remark "impose your natıonalist point of vıews". Please read WP:NPA. I will not tolerate such language from you in the future, and will seek action if repeated. NikoSilver 11:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Shared IP

Half the people in the Pentagon have the same IP address. I can assure you they are not all the same person. Buffadren 11:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why look for explanations when all that's really needed is a simple duck test.--Ploutarchos 11:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If Buffa has done something that breaches Wiki rules please state what this is. The Transnistria page is full of Romanian ducks, at least Buffa edits for both sides and opinions as half his edits are left there and half removed. The thing is the edits that show even a slight good light are removed. Buffadren 11:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Socks

There is a problem with socks on Cyprus [4]. Could you do one of those things you do that make the problem go away :) --Ploutarchos 14:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Blank templates

Thanks for your effort to make the Transnestria Workshop more readable by commenting out the blank templates. However, it's important that editors (especially those who are new to the arbitration process) realize that there is room for them to contribute additional proposals, so I'd prefer to see the extra templates remain visible for at least awhile longer. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad 15:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no problem, do as you see fit. Fut.Perf. 16:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevancies at Arvanites

Dodona and Ploutarchos continue a discussion about Greek and Albanian human rights policies at Talk:Arvanites which has nothing to do with improving the article. What are the rules about deleting irrelevancies like this from Talk pages? I suppose I'd prefer that an Admin do it.... --Macrakis 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Such debates can be removed, I've done it myself from time to time but it's not really an admin-only task. It's a wiki! :-) Fut.Perf. 19:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Captain Waters/band/room. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Genesis | Please sell England by the pound*** | on 11:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Britlawyer

I'm a bit concerned by your block of Britlawyer. Checkuser apparently showed that he was on a different continent from Mauco, or so at least Jpgordon says. All of the confirmed sockpuppets of Mauco showed up in the usual way, no? Surely at least some standard of proof ought to be required to block somebody. The supposed examples of similar editing are dubious - many editors appear to be suggesting that Tiraspol Times be linked from the Transnistria page, and indeed, it's a rather obvious thing to do, as it is the main news source for Transnistria. "Legalese" arguments at Talk:List of sovereign states are hardly anything new - the list was for a long time explicitly based on the Montevideo Convention, so it's hard to see how such things can be avoided. At any rate, the case hardly seems a slam dunk, so I'm concerned that the block was, at the very least, premature. john k 15:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for sharing your concerns. Yes, I'm aware the block is somewhat unusual, but in the Transnistria issues my supply of AGF is running a bit lower than usual. I've argued it a bit more on the Arbcom page, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence#Britlawyer blocked as abusive sock, but of course I'll be happy to have the thing reviewed and, if necessary, overturned by others. This wasn't an easy decision for me either. Anyway, I looked pretty closely at the precise temporal patterns of account creations and edits by Britlawyer, Mauco and his other known socks. I consider that data pretty damning (I can forward it to you). Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust as they say, and we can safely assume the people behind the Transnistrian astroturfing campaign (which undoubtedly exists) have means of concealing their puppetry by using geographically diverse proxies; they only get caught occasionally when they slip. Just look at how Buffadren passed through multiple checkusers seemingly clean, and then suddenly was revealed to have been on MarkStreet's IP after all. As for the content profile, say what you like, but first arguing the Montevideo convention and then the TT link, in this combination and with this degree of determination, looks more than just suspicious to me, and the style and language fits too if I'm not mistaken. Calling TT a "news source", by the way, is a bit of a euphemism; it is very decidedly a mere propaganda and disinformation instrument, and very easy to see through.
Anyway, I gave him a way out already: he said he was not a new user but had previously edited anonymously. Let him tell us a plausible story about what those previous anonymous edits were, right? Fut.Perf. 16:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Tiraspol Times is certainly a propaganda outfit, but it also contains actual news about Transnistria that probably can't be found anywhere else in English. Even if it is merely a propaganda source, it seems logical to include a link to it at Transnistria, as it is the English-language mouthpiece of the Transnistrian government. As to the issue of these arguments, while I won't doubt the existence of a Transnistrian astroturfing campaign, it seems clear that there's also an organized campaign by Romanians, Georgians, and Greeks to suppress any mention of Abkhazia, Transnistria, and the rest as de facto states. The current procedure appears to be to ban anybody advocating for the one side, thus allowing the other side free reign, when it is, so far as I can tell, not intellectually superior in any way - the same kind of petty, narrow nationalism is proudly on display on both sides. At any rate, what I'd really like to see at Talk:List of sovereign states is some discussion by long-standing users with no personal interest in the case. Anyway, the date pattern does sound suspicious, but Britlawyer has, more broadly, been civil and polite throughout the discussion, and has highlighted legitimate sources in favor of the inclusion of Abkhazia. If he is a sock puppet of Mauco, so much the worse, but his contributions have been far more productive than those of say, Ldingley, who has got to be somebody's sockpuppet. john k 16:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If you read my proposals at the Arbcom page, you'll see that I've just been suggesting banning two from the other side also. Of course there's an awful lot of nationalism, and certainly also "organised" campaigning behind the scenes in different quarters; the difference between the Transnistrian team and the others is that they are apparently paid for it. That's why they sound more professional and more civilised too. -- I don't know about Ldingley, haven't looked closely into him. -- I can forward you the sockery evidence for you to judge yourself if you like, in private for WP:BEANS reasons. Fut.Perf. 17:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you fw it to me as well pls :) --Ploutarchos 17:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, send it along. john k 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, later tonight, I'm on the rush now. Fut.Perf. 17:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bonnie's sock

I presume.

see his contribs [5]. Regards. Alæxis¿question? 20:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Another "newbie" appeared - [6]. Alæxis¿question? 07:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, an open proxy at DESY, Hamburg? That would be weird. Fut.Perf. 08:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Update: Actually, it does seem to be an exploitable server. Blocked. Fut.Perf. 08:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thx. Alæxis¿question? 08:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
More of them are coming - [7], [8]. Alæxis¿question? 14:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The second one is active on Abkhazia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page today. Isn't it an open proxy? Alæxis¿question?
See this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.229.17.156/ , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.174.237.195 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.125.20.76 . I've posted some of them there but they're not very swift. Alæxis¿question? 15:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Thx for a quick response. Alæxis¿question? 17:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Blocked some, but couldn't confirm all of them this time. But I'm not very tech-savvy in identifying open proxies. Fut.Perf. 17:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Testament - Martinus -

Dear Future Perfect.

I hereby ask for your help because it is very much needed. I have added the articles about Martinus and his work The Third Testament.

Days ago I saw that it was deleted. Therefore I read about the Wikipedia policies trying to understand what should be changed, and I did try to change all these details writing this time from NPOV for instance discussing the postulates. But I can’t see how we can describe this major work (43 books published in Denmark – 8000 pages here and now being translated in to more than 19 languages all over the world) without mentioning the authors intention etc.

I don’t claim that his intention is the truth, but how to show the content of such a work in a way without prejudice if not writing what he claims is in it??? In this case there has been not much debate about his work and therefore it is difficult to add all the competing opinions but I did find one scientific researcher who wrote two thick books trying to analyse the truths of Martinus claims. And I did add this researcher (Kurt Christiansen).

I know that this work is quite unusual, and that different religious capacities might feel upset, but they shouldn’t. The text claims to be love. I know that the content has great consequences in case the postulates in the 8000 pages are true. But how to know that if any knowledge about the existence of this work is deleted?

I read that Wikipedia is not censored. But If not being aloud to mention this work – probably the most voluminous work of any Danish writer until this day – well then I don’t know what censorship is. May bee you didn’t read my new text, and believe that it is exactly the same as the first text that appeared in april, but as you see it is not, I really try to follow consensus writing without bias. This is big work for me, I do this in my freetime as you probably doo, and in this case I need your help very much!

I hereby ask you to tell me what to do.

Friendly wishes,

Søren Jensen

Could you please take a look at this article and comment. The edit war and the talkpage. Some users want to say that "historians" (WTF? all of them) consider Albanians descendents of the Illyrians, while citing a source which confirms that it's in fact disputed.--Ploutarchos 17:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexander the Great and Illyrians

Mr Future.Perf.Sun why is it irrelevant for u to take into consideration editing the article Alexander the Great according to this 27 sources that me and a friend of mine gathered;

[ALEXANDER THE GREAT http://alexanderthegreat.wordpress.com/]Trojani 18:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Block

Sock puppet:165.234.104.4 by User:R9tgokunks [9] - he got blocked on only 1 week. R9tgokunks was blocked on 1 month. IP edits still: [10], [11] etc [12]. He avoids blockade. LUCPOL 10:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Logos and Fair Use Rationale

I am clearly with you on the idea of boilerplate fair use rationales for logos for the articles on the entities/organizations/whatever the logos are for. Clearly, this is the most rational way to deal with the issue, and, in fact, the whole reason why we have not, in the past, generally required fair use rationales for logos is because all rationales would be a simple boilerplate (and so, really, why bother?). Where do we go from here? Lexicon (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The people you didn't notify....

I think I got about 90 or 95% of the pages that have the new "This section temporarily removed" message via the removed Infobox Ethnic group. I did it manually, using Google and CTR+V. There's a new thread on the relevant Talk, have you read it? Some very exp. editors are disagreeing with your position... Thanks Ling.Nut 04:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

From Alaexis

Hi! Could you look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR as you already know the situation with Abkhazia-related articles. Alæxis¿question? 08:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Iasson at it again

Houston, we have another Iasson sock--Angleasked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who vandalized my userpage immediately after I finished reverting Spokechief's edits. And he'd only been created at 11:09 Eastern. Nuke him, please? (also mentioned at ANI)Blueboy96 15:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please make a rfcu for Blueboy96 and Gorbrown. Blueboy96 reverted all changes automatically, but in Gorbrown case he did it mannualy and he changed the old tag. I always wonder who Gorbrown is. Angleasked 15:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
And he also calls me an idiot. I am an apparent sock, but is it appropriate to call socks idiots? Is personnal attack allowed against socks? Angleasked 15:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Only if they're darned. Nardman1 15:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Asking Fut. Perf. again: Third Testament - reference included

I took a look at the english references and found this quite strong reference considering the English speaking readers: Paul Brunton. He was (as you can read in wikipedia) one of the world most famous authors concerning mystics, religion etc. working as a journalist and mystic himself he visited the real mystics of these days. Paul Brunton visited Martinus first time in 1948 which is documented by Paul Bruntons own words in the Danish 1952 edition of his book: "The Secret Path"). He visited Martinus again in 1950 and during the months may to aug. 1950 (4 month) he stayed with his wife at Martinus Institut Denmark where he was tought by Martinus (!).

A Danish documentary: “Martinus som vi husker ham” contents a very positive description on Martinus written by Paul Brunton. He visited Martinus again in 1956 and made a prescript for one of Martinus book: Mankind and the world picture. This prescribt (along with the book) can be read in the Magazine “Cosmos Special Issue", 1990-4. BUT in the printed final edition of the book it is brought without the preface by Brunton because of a decision not to introduce the work of Martinus through other known people. Martinus

Is this enough reference? I cant add it and prepare the Third Testament website, because it is deleted. What do you want me to do?

Friendly wishes, Søren Jensen--S.jensen 19:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Juicemango

Just wondering if you're the one who just changed the password on this account. I was about to do so myself after blocking it—realizing that that's obviously the better way to prevent it ever being used—but then saw that it was already changed. I just don't want anyone to think I'm behind the accounts when a checkuser shows an IP I've used. Lexicon (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm innocent... :-) Well, I did try to log into one or two others (wonder if those checkuser folks can see that? Hey checkusers, you hear this, I'm not Faethon!). But I didn't deal with Juicemango. What is this troll fest tonight? Fut.Perf. 20:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles on grammar

Hello Future Perfect, could you give your opinion on the articles conjugation tables, Dutch conjugation (and to a less extent Latin conjugation)? User:Bombshell and several anonymous editors have been adding very dubious and largely unsourced information during the last weeks, and it looks like this is another version of "archaic Dutch declension". My problem with those edits is that they all seem to fly straight in the face of common sense. Iblardi 05:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you blocked Stritch3d first

I am writing to express a concern about the userpage of User:Strich3d. He is been putting this "propaganda" and "vandalism" stuff about Bulgarian and Greek users and he keeps reinserting it. Can you please get involved? Mr. Neutron 16:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

From Alaexis - 2

Hi! Could you take a look at the List of sovereign states and the anons (like [13]) who have edited it lately? Thx in advance. Alæxis¿question? 12:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

knock knock

  • Have you lost track of WT:ETHNIC again? The opinions seem to be evenly divided, but I think the "Keeps" have far more editing exp. Your last "delete" vote has less than 1 month of exp., for example...
  • But that's irrelevant. There's enough opinion against your move to make it seem more than a little WP:POINTy to continue to ignore them. I would hate to find another admin to undo your edits... would you please self-revert?
  • Ling.Nut 12:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Shuppiluliuma Sock Puppet

I recently got myself into a bit of an angry edit war with User:Flavius Belisarius when he appeared to admit he is a sock of User:Shuppiluliuma (amongst others) on the Talk:Turkish Navy page. I noticed that you indefinetly blocked Shuppiluliuma, and was wondering if you would mind taking a look at this? ThanksHiberniantears 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just an update: Since this last message, Flavius addmitted he is Shuppililiuma here: [14]. Likewise, I reported it here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shuppiluliuma (1st). Hiberniantears 21:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! I'll stay out of his way for the mean time go back into the articles once there is a resolution. Hiberniantears 22:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser case completed

Hi, A checkuser IP Check case you filled has been completed by a CheckUser, and archived. You can find the results for 7 days at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive. -- lucasbfr talk, checkuser clerk, 07:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

Another article

With "German Romatnic Nationalism" in mind, you also might want to take a look at The German National awakening. Olessi 18:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise. I should inform you there is POV pusing against neutral point of view in Bitola Inscription and Samuil's Inscription. Mr. Neutron 19:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sock

Hi FP,

I don't really know how to reply to that - I don't understand what reason you would have to make an acusation; I've edited the page once as the subject has come up in my studies, thought I'd see what Wikipedia had to say, noted that there was no reference of a decent source that I'd been reading so thought I'd add a little information in from it. --Pretty Green 11:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I get that the edit is quite a complex one, but I just copied and pasted the format. I have read wiki for a while and i know things can get pretty heated. --Pretty Green 11:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you please delete this article? I wanted to nominate it for AfD because "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" but I saw that it was nominated before and the result was delete. Thank you in advance. Hessam 15:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just trying to take a little wikibreak and I don't think I'll have time to deal with this one now. Can you ask somebody else please? Cheers, Fut.Perf. 16:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not emergency. I asked you so you have a reason to come back!;-) Hessam 14:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous User:81.214.115.238 is systematically adding links to http://www.pointsfromturkey.com/ on many Turkey-related pages. That site has small amounts of plagiarized text (cf. http://www.pointsfromturkey.com/kalkan.html vs. http://www.turkey-webguide.com/mediterineregion.asp and http://www.guide-martine.com/mediterineregion.asp) and is not a useful EL. Do you have experience with the Spam blacklist? It seems like a long procedure.... --Macrakis 18:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue IX (V) - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you (and enjoy your wikibreak!).--Yannismarou 20:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Matthead (talk · contribs) is, once again, looking for trouble and once again is making my contributions to Wikipedia harder, or impossible. His recent edits are exemplary. He provides no edit summaries whatsoever (well besides "reverting to") despite making enormous changes (reverts that is) to articles. For example; he moved Imperial immediacy back to Reichsfreiheit, eventhough "Imperial immediacy" is the term used in English. He moved Blood Court back to Blutgericht eventhough "blood court" is the English term, and the 2 articles on wikipedia about specific "blood courts" use (suprisingly) ... "blood courts". Apart from reverting these edits just because they're mine, he has also (once again) thrown himself onto conflicts with Polish contributors/articles. Now, I will have to go through all the wikipedia red tape concerning moving articles. As now the article move got "controversial" because that idiot want to irritate people. Do something about this. Rex 21:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)