User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Archives

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

Could I ask you a favour?

Could you kindly ask a very grateful editor which promised you something [1] – not to remove referenced text and provide more relevant comments to the edits . Thanks

• [2] – “according to the reference” –

while source cited at 8-9 row from a top clearly have “Russians” Hungarians and Jewery – same text appeared at book with ISBN 966-02-2535-0 published by Institute of History National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine at p.576

• [3] – “nonsence rm”

while Time magazine ref i clearly have such string – at same time returned – non existed blog and same type “opinions” given as WP:V and WP:RS

Same style of edits comments also here [4] [5]

• [6]

It’s really not necessary to replace one not sourced string of text with another.

It’s really sad to note that is exactly in a same way as did one of the WP:EEML list member [7] - see [8] [9] ThanksJo0doe (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Time magazine citation is in fact _cherrypicked_ nonsense, because it is standard scholarship that Bandera spent the War as a concentration camp inmate.-Galassi (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The ref #2 mentions Poles only in the given context. JoOdoe, You are welcome to discuss this on the appropriate talk page.-Galassi (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The source for the last 2 is simply unreliable and self-contadictory, claiming that unic committed atrocities BEFORE it was ever in existence.

USer JoOdoe has a long history of tendentious anti-Ukrainian editing, in staggering amounts on hte Ru-Wiki.-Galassi (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And as I see now has an indefinite block on ruwiki.-Galassi (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Could you also kindly remind to editor about WP:V and WP:RS policy - and the fact that the WP article based on secondary RS but not on personal opinioins of the editors. So before to reach a conclusion - fact _cherrypicked_ nonsense editor should find a RS (high grade I think) which clearly indicate that the Time magazine information (as Also data of the Institute of History National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine ) is "cherrypicked_ nonsense" - while per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE this text should be included - together with claims that Bandera spent the 1939-1945 as a concentration camp inmate.

Also please advice an editor not to self nominate State Memorial Complex "Khatyn" [10] nor Auschwitz-Birkenau [11] as unreliable and self-contadictory.ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also please advice editor that WP is not right place to illustrate a WP:POINT -[12] - it's really not necessary to create a one string of text article which does not proved by reference added. Even more - it ref stated "Ukrainian" - no ground exist to translate such as "Russian" ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• However - in regards to [13] - see [14] - I can see "“Moscow”, Poles , Hungarians and Jewery - have you? ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

1RR restriction and self-revert promise [15]

[16] [17] [18]

• Could you remind an editor about promises – not to remove tag before solving reliability issue at talk page – it also included the changing ref from the online link of the concerned source to offline (as in first ref provided). Thanks
• Could you also advice editor to avoid “wholesale” revert and changing the source text meaning

Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am careful with my 1-R deal. The "dubious" tag was removed as a doubtful tertiary source was replaced by the reliable secondary one from which it quotes.-Galassi (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was unable to find referenced text in source provided - could you specify a page number please. I still quess when M.Logusz "The Waffen-SS 14th Grenadier Division, 1943-1945". became WP:RS - see that comment from [19]. Even more strange - which relation The Waffen-SS 14th Grenadier Division, 1943-1945 has to Bandera bio???Jo0doe (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

One more time

[20] - could you kindly remind to editor - if the sources clearly stated (even pages given - p.261-262 and 149-150) - it's no reasons to comment a wholsale revert as "unsourced". ThanksJo0doe (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• see that nice edits [21] - especially nice data - Born in 1898 In 1912, he completed his studies in the Military Academny in Vienna. :) All sources fails to WP:RS and WP:V (simply copy-paste from ukr-WP). While added source * І.К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 p.261-262 does not prove anything from article text (excluding may be date of birth:(). Any suggestions?Jo0doe (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • [22] - WP:SYN - WP:OR - text of Patrilyak does not bear any "Polish-Jewish" words and gives 1917 for graduation and other name and rank ans type of military institution. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Jo0doe, don't waste our time. We are working on the article. There are A LOT of sources, and there is no reason to prefer the ONE that fits YOUR POV. BTW, Yary article has a nice talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Yary, as yet unusused. ANy reason you wouldn't like to break it in? -Galassi (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You can save our time simply by following WP principles. You know Institute of History of the Ukrainian National Academy of Science nor Shevchenko University does not reflect alleged “POV”. Please indicate me a “LOT” of sources which endorsed by Scholar Council of the Institute of History of the Ukrainian National Academy of Science and Scholar Council of the Kyiv Shevchenko University at once? I’m not an admin to deal with repeated blind wholesale reverts of sourced texts , WP:OR, WP:SYN and source misuse to cover such not allowed at WP practice. Please behave Jo0doe (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • [23] - OUN official Z.Knysh declared as "historian", OUN-B official P.Mirchuk also. Editor eventually visit Koblenz and seen / R 58/214 f. 69. - so draft own conclusion about it:) But Institute of History of the Ukrainian National Academy of Science sources data ommited at all.Jo0doe (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Promices?

[24] disruptive edit while - I even add a citation from p.161 In latter part of the war there is also no question that the OUN-B and UPA ... adhere to side of the retreating Germans which preceded the text given after [25].Thanks for any actions - or advice.Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Review of admin credentials

I would like to ask for a review/reversal of your admin credentials. Another user compared your sternness to North Korea judges. This behavior can not continue. History2007 (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

For your information, History2007 has also brought up this matter at my talk page (User talk:Ucucha#Admin behavior). Ucucha 20:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your comment on Ucucha's talk page that:

This North Korean judge strongly objects to having his true identity bandied about like this in, by now, five locations ([26] [27] [28] [29] [30]). If this goes on, I shall appeal to my admin cabal to intervene. 한국에서 악마의 심판 ☼ 20:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

seems to suggest that admin rights are a joke. This can not continue. I will therefore have to assume that your comments to me were also jokes. History2007 (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, they were not. Something here is certainly a joke, but you seem not quite clear about what it is. 아니 한국의 농담 ☼ 21:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

But you have failed to address my questions and concerns about your accusations. E.g. Your statement about IDIDNOTHEARTHAT was clearly incorrect since the discussion on the image talk page only had 3-4 steps. And you ignored the use of fraudulent by the other user, and just lectured me. I consider your behavior one sided, and your jokes as a sign that you do NOT, repeat NOT, take your admin resposibilities seriously and must have your admin credentials reviewed with a view to be revoked. I still maintain that your warning to me was unjust, biased and in view of your less than serious attitude must be ignored. By the way, did you notice that I was right afterall and the map had errors.... History2007 (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, as stated on my talk page, if you do not explain yourself and justify your actions, I will have to assume you have no explanation and have forfieted your admin responsibilities. Why did you use IDIDNOTHEARTHAT? Why? Why do you not explain your actions but issue jokes instead? Do you feel you are above reproach? Was the other user's analogy too far off? Those judges do not have to give explanations. But I think you MUST give an explanation, or your admin responsibilities must be reviewed. I am waiting for an explanation. History2007 (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Go away. You are being tedious. This is precisely the "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" mentality I referred to, and I'm not going to play your game by continuing debating you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, this is a case of "I DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER" on your part. You can NOT pretend to act like an admin, make accusations and when someone asks a question about your accusations, just say "go away". I am waiting for an answer about your use of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Why do you not answer? I think because you know you were wrong, else you would answer instead of issuing jokes. If you do not give an answer, I will have to assume you have given up your responsibilities as an admin and will ignore your comments hereafter. History2007 (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

blocking template

Hi, proofreader is requesting a blocking template as is usual? I am just passing on the message, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ani Notice.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that I mentioned your name (abbreviated as FPS) in that same ANI. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 14:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Macedonistics

Hello. I have created this article, it is still in the first phase, but can you check it for technical things? Thanks--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

RFAr

You've misspelt User:Rodhullandemu on the Proofreader77 RFAr.   pablo_hablo. 10:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem with pic

Hi. Thanks for responding. I have explained the problem here. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help. IZAK (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:pournick

Hello. I think you should look at these edits: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

this user is going to put this map to this every single page that related to iran. but according to this map which is a work of Texas university and even this one which shows the geography of Iranian languages, his map is wrong in most places. you can compare them. after all his map doesn't have a single source. I notice him about his edits in his Talk page but he didn't even listen to me and just say that this references are wrong (see here) and insist to put his map and make bigger the Azeri part of image. I really need your help I think we should stop him to do this vandalism and put the last map back to pages because it was based on reliabe refrence.

he even used to delete information in some pages without any explanation page (see this and this).

Thanks Bahramm 2 (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems somebody blocked him already. When he returns, he should be firmly asked to provide a detailed account of the sources for the map he favours. I have no opinion about the correctness of any of these versions, and would have hardly any means to check even if I wanted to. The CIA map at the Texas university website is certainly a decent enough source but hardly holy writ, so if anybody wants to argue that this or that map is more correct, a detailed comparison of claims and (ultimate) data sources of each would need to be done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sp investigation

I've mentioned you in this spi case I've just filled Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarandioti. It concerns a possible sock account of User:Sarandioti.Alexikoua (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

CrossFit

An editor has made some major changes to the recently-unprotected CrossFit article. Could you take a look? Woogee (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for the heads-up, yet another single-purpose account, but many of their changes were rather obvious necessary cleanup improvements, so I couldn't say at first sight that it's disruptive. Will need to be watched for any new attempts at inserting glorification though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know nothing about the company, so I was just concerned that being an spa they might be continuing the edit war, but if you're satifsied, then no prolemo. Thanks.  :) Woogee (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Abusing admin priviledge: Iota

Meanwhile abusing admin priviledge to lock an article because of an alternative explanation lacking a better souce is considered perfectly polite? Konfino (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh? What admin privilege? I used semi-protection to keep out a banned user, over a totally different issue. You were, and still are, perfectly able to edit the article just as much as I am. With you, I am having a simple editorial discussion. I'll check your sources now. BTW, please note that we use bottom-posting in discussion threads: new postings go to the bottom of the page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

IPA for Bulgarian and Macedonian

Hi. I understand you have an expertise on linguistics. Can you take a look here? Is it OK with you? --Factuarius (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. The new user who created it for Mkd seemed to know what they were doing, and the merger of Mkd and Bg coverage was done by User:Kwamikagami, who is probably one of the most competent editors we have for this kind of thing. Treating the two languages together seems well justified, given their similarity. Why do you ask? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically for what you mentioning at the end, but if you find it justified, it's OK with me. About my last rv, you are right, I indeed overlooked it, thanks. But BTW something doesn't fit with that particular user. Either he is a WP:genius and we will have a new admin in three months or this is not a 2.5 months old user. I hope to be just a (very) old IP editor, but again this is Balkans.. Thanks anyway --Factuarius (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Τι, ο Πτολίων, να μην είναι καινούργιος? Α μπα, τέτοιο πράγμα, ιδέα σου, πως σου ήρθε... ;-) Σοβαρά όμως, δεν ξέρω ποιος είναι, αλλά έχω κάτι υποψίες ας πούμε. Μη φοβάσαι, είναι εντάξει τύπος. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(!) Γενικά δε θέλω να το συζητάω αλλά αφού μιλάς Ελληνικά, θα το παραδεχτώ: Το πάλεψα, αλλά έχω το πρόβλημα που έχουν όλοι οι ηλίθιοι: Δεν θεωρώ εντάξει τύπους τους πολύ έξυπνους τύπους.[37][38][39] [40]. Αλλά πάλι όπως είπες μπορεί και νάναι καλό παιδί. --Factuarius (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

user:Pournick again

This user evaded the previous block by using another account (User:Noofoozi) to edit in pages like Tabriz. Now he is using these accounts, together with IP account user:188.158.193.106 to vandalize several pages (see for example this edit). after all he is going to put his map again in the articles without even discuss with other users.(see here)Bahramm 2 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Petri Krohn ANI discussion

Fine, however you may want to collapse all comments from other individuals who remain topic banned under Arbitration enforcement, pending resolution of this issue. Cheers, Martin (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I am not quite sure if this deserves yout attention... I am in trouble with two editors who have two things in common: they both follow my edits, and they do nothing but blind reverts (mostly deletions of sourced and relevant texts) when they follow me. One of them is User:Ellol. It's going like this.

1. I make a new version of introduction and other changes. He makesblind revert
2. I make a number of changes to improve the article. He makes blind revert
3. I make a number of different changes fully explained at article talk page. He reverts
4. He finally made 14 edits in this article during last several months and all of them were blind reverts of texts included by me; he never added any new information to this article.

Another is User:YMB29. This is all very similar:

1. I insert fully sourced content on the topic. He makes blind revert
2. I insert other fully sourced and relevant information - He makes blind revert, with misleading edit summary
3. He made 9 edits in this article during last month, and all of them were blind reverts with removal of sourced texts included by me.
4. He does the same in a different article. I am trying to explain this once, and again in a different way. But it does not help [41]. He made 5 edits there, and all of them are blind deletions of sourced texts by me. Almost all other edits by this user in the article space are also reverts, no matter if he follows me or someone else [42]...

I talked with the both like here and on article talk pages. I got an impression that they simply do not know much on the subjects. Therefore, they can only revert. Since you are familiar with EEML case, let me tell you this. After the repeated outings and ridiculous WP:COI accusations about me (both on-wiki and off-wiki), I feel uncomfortable editing anything related to my work. That's fine. There are many other subjects to edit. But the guys are following my edits everywhere. That's not a problem if they respect policies because I can provide all sources, but they seem to simply remove everything they do not like, no matter how well it was sourced. Biophys (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)