User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Archives

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

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)

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.

The "can't be bothered with barnstars" barnstar

☆ For finally putting a long-dead horse out of its misery 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"[1] 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 [2][3] 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#Recent_POV_edits. 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 {{db-filecopyvio}} template (or, for image files, the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template). Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.

{{db-f9|url=URL of source}}, {{db-filecopyvio|url=URL of source}}"

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:CSD#F7b ("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#2 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:

Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.

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)

Mail

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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 Wikipedia: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)

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)

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. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For grasping the nettle at Talk:Corvette and closing this (decidedly awkward!) Request Move. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

.

. (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)

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,
— V = IR (Talk • 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)

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! Intoronto1125TalkContributions 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. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 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. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 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)

Wikihounding

I've started 2 discussions lately about Delta.

• 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.

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.

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.

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 [4], 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#Last_editing_restrictions_block
• User_talk:Rd232/archive9#Edit_Summaries
• [[5]]
• [6]

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)