User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Archives

Soren (given name)

your answer is provided in the talk page!

Happy New Year!

Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Clarification requested

Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. I do have questions:

What actions/refraining from action are required of me? Which are preferred of me?

I get the impression that this is like getting a warning instead of a speeding ticket. What exactly is it that I'm supposed to do or not do? I don't want to be back in a filing next week with someone saying, "We warned you not to make any posts on that talk page/only make posts on the talk page and not edit article/edit quotation marks in English but not WT:MoS" but I also don't want "What do you mean? Of course you were still allowed to make posts on the talk page/edit the MoS/edit quotation marks in English; you just weren't supposed to do X." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have also requested clarification, at User talk:SMcCandlish#Topic-ban (not sure if ping worked; seems to be an unreliable feature).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That's rather a lot of questions from both of you combined, so I'm afraid I might not be able to deal with all of it immediately; you might have to wait till tomorrow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)What? You think you're allowed some kind of weekend or something?!?! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fine; enjoy the holiday. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no hurry.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's Sept. 9 now. :-) I've run into some editing walls on a couple of things that seem like they should not be an issue, but I'm trying to be cautious. [squeaking wheel noises here]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

And another week+ has passed. At this point, I ask that the TB just be lifted if you won't narrow it or even clarify its scope as requested. It's not preventing any kind of disruption (the WT:MOS mess was already winding down when you intervened, the noticeboard action has remained closed without further incident, and I see no need to revisit that matter). I don't see that dispute repeating in any such form; it will simply be a matter of sourcing.

The TB is simply having a punitive effect and getting in the way of my productivity here, including sourcing an article that very badly needs it, as well as continued drafting of two MOS pages (MOS:GLOSSARIES and MOS:ORGANISMS). It's also having a chilling effect on what RfCs, RMs, XfDs, even regular edits I make, since the scope is so overbroad it would appear to prevent me citing anything in MoS as a rationale. And interfering in my work to normalize our block quotation templates (which have nothing to do with the quotation-marks style matter at issue in the dispute you responded to), and providing sourcing on gender-related language matters that I promised to provide, and ... [insert a dozen other things].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Civility

I know we don't always agree on everything, but you need to remember to be civil. I didn't appreciate the snide comment you made in the edit summary when you reverted my edit on the Byzantine Empire page. We're all here to improve the wiki, there's no reason to be rude when someone makes a good faith edit. I Feel Tired (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, I think more editors needs to object to "slow editwarring". Observing that it's happening, that one is frustrated with it, and is not going to keep putting up with it, isn't actually incivil. I just wished that fact was understood to apply to everyone who does choose to speak up about it and not mince words. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Being Human (UK series 4)

Hi, looking over the slushpile of drafts I found one on this season of a TV show, but I note previous versions have been deleted. I'm trying to work out why, can't find any reasoning or any duplicate season specific article. TIA for any insight. Rankersbo (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change again

Special:Contributions/78.145.31.93. I've reverted. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Odd situation

Hello FPaS. One of my wikignome tasks is to help with cleaning up articles that wind up in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Today the article Polandball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) showed up on this list. I waited until after the expiration time that you had set expired but found that the article was still protected. As I tried to figure out why I notice in the log that the protection sentence mentions "indefinite" as well as having an expiry time. I have been working with these for a few months but this is the first time I have seen this. I changed the notation in the protection template to indef and that removed the article from the category. I know your protection was six months ago so you may have to search your memory banks for what went on. I wanted to alert you to this so you can remove the protection if you think that it has served its purpose or leave it at indef. Thank your for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 04:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I too had to read that log entry twice to figure out what it is. Actually, what you're seeing is technically quite regular: the protection was set to indef for editing, and to expiry 13 September for move-protection only. No idea why I did it that way or whether it was intentional at all though. But given that the article was a classic target of Russavia trolling, I'm inclined to leave the editing-semi in place for a while more. Thanks for the heads-up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome and thanks for the explanation. I know I have seen separate templates for editing and move protection so it is helpful for my work on these to know that they can also be combined. Leaving the protection makes sense as well. I hope that you have an enjoyable week on WikiP and, more so, off. MarnetteD|Talk 13:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: GamerGate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)