User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Archives

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

User:Bertport

Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Since you blocked twice my access to English wiki, I have no choice but contact you anonymously. Firstly, I want to express my deepest regret and disaffection for the two blockages. How could people jump to a judgement only by listening to one side's words? Don't you know the villain always sues his victim before he himself is prosecuted. It's User:Bertport who made the very first revert [1] at 00:19, 19 February 2010 while I, mainly with User:Clemensmarabu, had been contributing days to the article Tibet. I never see he does any constructive edit but only undoes others' contributions or stealthily stuffs his biased words.

I waited one week to finally edit the article, if you please have a look at what content is restored [2], you'll tell at once good from bad. Both sides' opinions are presented and historical events are scholarly argued, thus I wonder where come from the courage of Bertport to revert such an edit and his boldness to accuse others anticipately. Regards. -- LaGrandefr

Watch out

See this. Not another interest party flood. Just a heads up ;) Michi

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Jéské Couriano's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Attila art work

how can i prove that, the art work is under a free licance. this is the original page the author has published the work: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_(hun_uralkod%C3%B3)--Finn Diesel (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

definitely, he claims he is the same person who upload the art work and he also claims there couldn't be any limitations.--Finn Diesel (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Requesting help re: disruptive edits

Duchamps comb has repeatedly removed sourced material from Rand Paul without discussion, and then began disrupting Paul's talk page by introducing misleading quotes. Duchamps posted this on the talk page:

"and its registered team only has one ophthalmologist" --[that entry is wrong because] Paul has had over 200 other Opthamologist re-certified by his NBO. --Duchamps_comb MFA 18:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In reality, the sentence said:

"its [the NBO's] registered team only has one ophthalmologist, Paul himself, listed in the annual filing submitted to the Kentucky registering agency."

Additionally, the source is a document that Rand Paul penned himself! When asked to cease the removal of sourced information in the article without discussion, Duchamps declined. As you've dealt with Duchamps previously, regarding similar actions, I believe this situation would benefit from your help. The Original Wikipedian (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Attila the Hun photo

Thanks for tagging the Attila photo for deletion from the commons. I expanded on the situation on the Attila the Hun talk page. I deleted the photo from the article, then realized I was putting the cart before the horse, that the Commons deletion should have a chance to be answered. I went back to replace the photo, and discovered a different problem: An anonymous editor making several changes in a few minutes, including to the Attila the Hun article, with the Edit Summary "IN GOD I TRUST - FINN DIESEL" [3]

I'm not sure whether it's more appropriate to move this to an anti-vandalism page, but I assume since you are familiar with the history, there would be less confusion if you continued. I'll mention the reason I got involved at all was noticing what seemed to be a high number of reverts in Finn Diesel without an Edit Summary, and a warning for edit warring his talk page. The copyright violation only seems to be one of the problems, although perhaps the most cut-and-dried. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. The IP is probably not the real Finn Diesel block-evading, but unrelated banned sockpuppeter Wikinger (talk · contribs) impersonating him purely for the purpose of spreading confusion. Any IP that turns up editing in a weird manner after this one (including IPs that might start edit-warring against the first) will all be Wikinger socks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, having dealt with the sock IPs, the thing about the actual copyright is maybe not quite as open-and-shut. There is some chance that the guy is actually right and those paintings were original works by one hu-wiki contributor. Commons are now waiting for e-mail confirmation to get this clarified. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I did think it odd that Finn Diesel would resort to such extreme tactics. His "sins", as it is, seem to be edit warring and unclear Edit Summaries for his motivations. It's nice to have an explanation of the broader situation from the admin perspective. Sometimes one wonders, "What the heck was going on there?"

I formulated the question about photo copyright on the basis of Finn Diesel's conflicting claims that were not related to policy, e.g., that Wikipedia had purchased the photo, implicitly that he owned it, explicitly that someone else owned it, and that "artist's works are free". I steer clear of debate about free use of photos of paintings, but I'm somewhat ambivalent after a long and polite letter from a national museum explaining that they were enraged Wikipedia was making free use of images of dozens of their paintings which are their property. They regard Wiki's usage as theft. Even apprehending various opposing legal positions, I have a personal experience that disposes me toward free use: The professor in a Chinese landscape painting class told us that the public really doesn't know what the greatest works are, because most are in China, many behind private doors, and have not otherwise been seen. Is is proper to hide human cultural heritage in this fashion? As much as I respect personal property ownership, I would have to say it is not. But these are other problems, for other people. It would be nice to reign in Finn Diesel to the point where he was a little less nationalistic, and a little more aware of English Wikipedia policy. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list

Following a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Remedy 20 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Miacek topic banned") is lifted.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 00:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Visa requirements for Palestinian citizens

Please take care of this nightmare: [4]. Colchicum (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hkwon topic ban

I am an uninvolved editor who came in response to the kimchi RfC. I do not entirely agree with Hkwon's POV or his editing practice but to dish out an indefinite topic ban for a minor edit war is way over the top. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I don't think I'd assess that as a minor edit war. Actually, FutPerf, I was wondering if really topic banning only one user is really the way to go here; it looked like there was excessive edit warring from other users also. Is there a reason we shouldn't be issuing similar bans to other long-term edit warriors here? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm relatively new here, but the page WP:TOPICBAN states "Topic bans are a kind of editing restriction imposed either by the Arbitration committee or by community consensus as usually determined on one of the two active administrative notice boards: WP:ANI or WP:AN. " I don't recall seeing any discussion of this issue on either ANI or AN, nor does it show up in the archives. Can you please explain how you are able to topic ban Hkwon (as you claimed to have done on his talk page here: [5] [6]) without getting community consensus first? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(I fixed a diff in the comment above). --Enric Naval (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll say to you that you are now officially banned from issuing any more topic-bans or otherwise passing yourself off as a person that can issue such things. I would like to say to you that if you violate this ban, you will be perminantly banned from all of Wikipedia. But I won't because that'd be wrong, I only say so for rhetorical purposes. Chrisrus (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, talk page comments meant solely to inflame. How nice. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The current disruption at the Korean cuisine articles is part of a long-standing pattern of disputes that has in the past been so violent that I've taken the stance that the whole topic area is de facto under a regime of "discretionary sanctions" similar to that of Eastern Europe, Israel-Palestine and other ideological hotspots, i.e. allowing admins largely carte blanche to intervene with whatever sanctions are necessary. Arbcom or no Arbcom. Whenever I've taken unconventional measures in this field (e.g. at Liancourt Rocks and other articles), the community has upheld them. A topic-ban like the one I imposed is essentially just a delayed disruption block under the normal blocking policy. I'm saying to this editor: "I've got enough reasons that would justify blocking you for a longish time, but for now I won't as long as you stay out of the topic area". We can of course take this to a noticeboard too, if you insist. Or, if you insist I do things by the book, I can just block the person right away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Why him? Why not the others in the dispute? Because they, in violation of policy, type in thier personal attacks in Korean, and you didn't use Google translate or some such? Just to mention one thing they did wrong. The effect of banning him will be to support those who wish to hide, dismiss, or completely blank all mention of dogmeat in the article on Korean cusine, instead of a compromise to put the practice into it's proper perspective, probably not as prominent as Hkwon would like it, but not swept under the rug as Melon-whozits would probably like to see done. If we let the sources lead, there should be a place in any article on Korean cusine to mention their fifth largest livestock animal, albeit one not at the same level of consumption as beef, chicken or pork, or even duck. These Koreans have very different points of view as to how they want this practice portrayed to the rest of the world, some don't care what foreigners think, and would treat it like any other meat, which is probably going too far, and those (who you would de facto support) who attack any mention of it as lies designed to smear Korean people, who want the practice hidden from foreigners like you and me. That's censorship; that's going too far; that's anti-Wikipedian. I hope you will carefully review the entire incident and see what happened and ban no one or both sides for the sake of what's good for Wikipedia in the long run. Chrisrus (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

I don't know anything about Hkwon's activities at other Korean topics besides kimchi, where I've been working closely with him to try to resolve his concerns. I agree that at times he moved into edit warring there, although so did his "opponents," and some of them made comments that I believe were actually intended to provoke Hkwon into edit warring and incivility. And I do think that he was unnecessarily stuck on (what I perceive as) a very small change in wording. But I also believe that he had sincere, good faith reasons for his desired wording.. But I don't see that behavior as being so egregious as requiring a unilateral topic ban.

Now, looking at your userpage, it seems like you embrace the use of non-standard practices to improve the encyclopedia. Maybe I'm too new here too appreciate that. To me, it seems like the project is hurt when something as huge as a topic ban (for Hkwon, I would argue is practically a de facto full ban, as I believe editing Korean articles is his reason for being here) is decided without community consensus, it pushes people to believe that sincere disagreement isn't really tolerated at Wikipedia. With a community consensus (or an absolutely clear violation of policy, like in the case of vandalism or spamming) the decision acquires legitimacy. It lets us say "The community does not tolerate this type of editing." Instead, Hkwon can now say "That FP guy is totally abusing his power" or, even worse, "I bet Sennen Goroshi or Melonbarmonster2 put him up to this" (since SG, for instance, actually threatened topic banning, and almost seemed to be encouraging it), even though neither of those is necessarily true.

I can totally get why it seems to make sense, especially on nationalist topics, to follow your "rogue" approach. I've looked through the history of several Korean related pages (like Liancourt Rocks), and I'm quite familiar with the debate outside of Wikipedia and how, um, insane, it gets. But again, I'd rather have either 1) the community come down on Hkwon and say "No More," or 2) Arbcom declare Korean articles to be under 1RR, just like Balkans or Gaza articles.

I don't know where I want to go with this. My inclination is to take this to AN, because it just seems out of line for an administrator, and, if it's not, you're not in any risk any way. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of running to a noticeboard to fix this type of issue, and I also don't want, as you implied, to go through a long drawn out process if your apparently long and notable experience is correct--that no matter what he'll end up topic banned anyway.

What do you think? Do you really believe Hkwon's behavior was so much worse than the others he was warring with that he deserves a topic ban, and that said ban will really be sustained by the community? Do you really believe you are correct to circumvent policy? Do you really believe that such circumvention is in the best interests of Wikipedia? Your responses are appreciated, as they will help shape (although not necessarily control) my thinking on the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. there were several uninvolved editors, of which I was one, who came to the kimchi article as a result of the RfC and who were trying to mediate in a simple but intractable dispute on whether kimch was 'a fermented food'.

Can I suggest that you lift the ban on Hkwon and allow the uninvolved editors to continue the mediation, with the strong suggestion that all the involved editors refrain from editing the article and on the understanding that if we get nowhere we can hand the topic back to you for tougher action. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts at mediating this, but it didn't appear to me that it was stopping Hkwon from edit-warring and from personal attacks. In any case, I don't think it's much use talking about this before Hkwon himself has commented on the matter. But I'll keep your suggestion in mind. – BTW, since people mentioned other disruptive participants, I was in fact considering some more sanctions too, but in the end those didn't seem quite so pressing to me, yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall be careful in what I say here because I am not sure this is any of my business, I don't like to make other someones talk page into a battlefield and more accusations are not going to help anything, I won't even comment on if I support the topic ban or not. What I will say is that I have previously had a topic ban in place on my account, it probably saved me from an extremely long block due to me not having contact with the editors I was in heated and continued dispute with. I also imagine when myself and the other editor in dispute were blocked, it brought some stability and peace to the articles that we were causing problems on. If the disputes on the kimchi article had resulted in major improvements along with the edit wars, then there might be some arguments for placing sanctions on the article, rather than on an editor, but as far as I can see the disputes have not resulted in any improvements. I can't speak for Hkwon, but if I was either going to be the recipient of a lengthy block or a topic ban, I know which one I would choose. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel that either this restriction should be applied fairly upon the disputants, particularly Melonbarmonster2 who has been engaging in controversial edit wars in a multitude of articles related to Korean cuisine, or that this restriction shouldn't be applied at all. I share Hkwon's POV on the basis of many reliable sources that fermentation is a central element in the definition of kimchi, and after you topic-banned Hkwon, Melonbarmonster2 has threatened me of the same happening to me because of my views on this subject.[7] Cydevil38 (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. Your topic ban on Hkwon was unjustified and unfair. It is not the job of administrators to decide who is right in an argument and then ban those that they consider to be wrong, this is not how WP works, or at least how it is meant to work. Neither is it particularly useful to ban all editors or lock the article; WP is the encylcopedia that anyone can edit. Please let me stress again that I am an uninvolved editor, along with several others who have commented here. I have no views on whether kimchi is fermented or not, in fact I had never even heard of it before I came to the RfC. I must ask you again to unblock Hkwon so that the normal dispute resolution process can proceed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, neither is Hkwon currently blocked, nor did I sanction him because I decided who was right in the argument. In fact I have no more of an opinion about kimchi than you have. Hkwon was sanctioned because he was edit-warring and acting disruptively in the debate. He is free to comment on the situation and explain how he plans to conduct himself more constructively in the future. Once he's done that, we can talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

How's the situation at the article3 dogmeat changed, Mr. Perfect? Chrisrus (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Another Serafin sockpuppet?

You blocked User:Showasw the other day as a sockpuppet of banned User:Serafin. Is User:MyMoloboaccount another sockpuppet?--Srleffler (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet of Serafin for certain. My speciality are German war crimes in WW2 and Polish presence in German states.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"MyMoloboaccount" is a new account of long-established user Molobo (talk · contribs). He has some history of prior blocks and bans, IIRC, but is not a sockpuppet, certainly not of Serafin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Climategate screenshot

The article only states "(dubbed "Climategate" in the media)". Their is not a section as to the Etymology, yet there is over 2 million hits on Google. NFCC #1&8 states, "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The screenshot clearly illustrates the media (FOX News) using of the phrase. So if there is no written section about the media "dubbing" the Incident it can only be represented by a photo, how are we to get one that is for free/fair use (Note: that almost half of the ref used in the article use the word climategate). As far as Contextual significance [8] Climategate became very controversial and garnered lots of media coverage, a screenshot of that term in news coverage would likely be appropriate.--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no information conveyed by the image that could not also be conveyed by a sentence of text (like: "parts of the media began to use the term 'Climategate'"). Whether there currently is such a sentence or not is of no importance. If there isn't, I obviously wouldn't know why: either nobody has bothered to write one yet, or editorial process has led to its exclusion for some reason or other. If you feel there needs to be more coverage, you are free to work on the text, within the bounds of editorial consensus of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Request

[9], [10]

If it is not too much trouble I would like to request that you remove the word "birther" from both the Incident Archive and from my Block log. I find that word terribly-offensive and upsetting and do not feel I should carry this stigma.--Duchamps_comb MFA 23:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if I had the technical power to remove things from logs (which I haven't), I see no reason to do it here. I blocked you for "Obama 'birther' fringe POV pushing". That's exactly correct: you were pushing fringe POV content in favour of the anti-Obama campaign conventionally known as "birthers". If you find association with that campaign offensive, don't associate with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice of ANI Discussion (Your topic ban of Hkwon)

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. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral notification

As somebody who has taken part in the previous discussions on this topic, you may be interested in the current move discussion here. Varsovian (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Deucalionite

[11] is that Deucalionite or someone else?It is him[12]--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

WW II is heating up again

Hello Future Perfect. Since you previously warned the two editors who are now at WP:AN3#User:Posse72 reported by User:Tbma (Result: ), regarding the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, do you want to comment there on what should be done? It seems to be that an indefinite topic ban under WP:DIGWUREN would be a way to get their attention, but that might not be the only thing to try. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Not much time now to look at it right now, but as far as I'm concerned, go and topic-ban away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Done [13]. I did not think that a longer block would do much good, after trying to discuss the issue with both parties. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston has bliocked me without an reason, I complyed 100% with wikipeda rules, and this is how im awardedPosse72 (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC).