User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Archives

Note: If you leave a message here I will usually respond here.

Re-VibhintaVerma.jpg image Problem

Hi, The vibhinta verma image has not yet published anywhere online, It is perfectly safe to use it on Wikipedia. There will be no copyright issue at all. and there will be no problem in future regarding copyright. Candicell

Steve Hodges

Hi, Steve Hodges gave permission for his official photo to be used on Wikipedia the day before the election. He lost the special election for congress so I doubt that we will have a photo of him available again. The note that he gave his permission to use the photo was in the boxes under the photo and on the talk page. without the one picture of him, the special congressional election for MO_08 at Wikipedia looks very biased for the man elected. I admit that I have trouble trolling through the wp jargon and do not understand all the image permissions, but it seems that to keep the unbiased nature of wp and because he sent written permission, the photo of Steve Hodges for Congress 2013 should be returned to Wikipedia, but by somebody with a greater understanding of wp permissions...like you perhaps. thank you!

AS 50 & AWM 338 Images Deleted

Hey, I need to understand what exactly the problem is with these images? The owner gave me the right to freely make them available, I submitted the written permissions, went through the correct procedures and yet still they were deleted, what exactly is going on? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Accuracy_International_AWM_338.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_Accuracy_International_AS-50.jpg thanks in advance Twobells 11:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

When you uploaded File:The_Accuracy_International_AS-50.jpg here on en-wp in January, you declared it as non-free, and I deleted it on that basis, as it clearly didn't meet the non-replaceability criterion of our WP:NFCC rules. You also said you had "permission" from the rights holder, but according to what you said that was just a permission for use here on Wikipedia, and not a fully free license for free re-use elsewhere, so it wasn't sufficient for us. For the other file, en:File:Accuracy_International_AWM_338.jpg, an OTRS statement was submitted when it was re-uploaded by User:Francis Flinch some time later, both here and on Commons (I suppose that was also you, under a different account name?). At that time, I deleted it here simply because it was redundant to the copy on Commons, but before that happened, an OTRS volunteer (User:VernoWhitney) had noted that the OTRS statement was not yet sufficient, and that's also the reason cited by the deleting admin on Commons (commons:User:HJ Mitchell). I can't say what in the OTRS statement was problematic, as I don't myself have access to that correspondence, but I'd expect the OTRS volunteers should have explained it to you at the time. Probably the statement didn't contain clear enough evidence that the permission was meant to cover free re-use for all purposes and not just use on Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am by no means a copyright expert and will not quickly judge any editor regarding that subject, but in defence of User:Twobells I can assure you that Twobells did not spoof my account. I just tried to help. It is not easy for a normal editor (like me) to judge what is appropriate or not regarding OTRS and uploading such information correctly, so please lets assume good faith instead of jumping to all kinds of exciting assumptions and conclusions.--Francis Flinch (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

this editor has been particularly hostile for no good reason as well as obviously paranoid in their suggestion that I used a sock puppet with absolutely no evidence and deleted images that were supplied on the condition they would be free and in the public domain, I stated the images were for use on Wikipedia and elsewhere, Future Perfect has shown bad faith and deleted images that took me considerable time and effort to obtain. I have little experience with uploading images and gauging which is the correct template to use so it seems I was penalised for that inexperience, hardly the sort of behaviour that Wikipedia professes to deplore in its guidelines. I think I deserve an apology for your baseless accusations. Twobells (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not "paranoid", and I didn't accuse you of anything – I was just trying to make sense of the situation that you came here ostensibly as the uploader of these images while technically they had been uploaded by another account, so naturally my guess was that both accounts were the same person. I was simply asking you about that. If it wasn't the case, no problem. As for the images, I think I gave you a clear and polite explanation about what happened with them, right above here. What in all of this you feel to be "hostile", I'm sorry but I really have no idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your tireless work on topics prone to neutrality problems. bobrayner (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I second that ... for taking care of the article on Tariq. MisterCDE (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about a user you might know

Hey, thanks for weighing in on the AE case against Bobby fletcher (who now seems to be editing while logged off[1][2]). During that case, User:STSC arose from a six-month hibernation to defend Bobby fletcher[3]. User then started advocating for the same content on Tiananmen Square[4], and making personal attacks at Talk:Falungong[5]. I see from his redacted talk page history that you have topic banned this user before over his edits on the East China Sea controversy, so I wanted to get your advice. Should I just give him some rope?—Zujine|talk 13:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there evidence that links the IP to Bobby fletcher? If that were the case, we'd have to also deal with the edit-warring on Tiananmen. STSC somehow vaguely rings a bell; I'll have a look at his edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

On Tiananmen Square, there are two IPs from the island of Tonga that have been edit warring to include the US embassy cables:[6][7] I'm not sure a checkuser would connect the IPs to Bobby fletcher, but the content and edit summaries used are virtually identical. Compare Bobby fletcher's edit summary here to the summaries posted by 175.176.145.134[8][9]. "Feel free to edit but not remove, as deleting reliable source of fact is POV." —Zujine|talk 15:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

IP 91.155.236.125 posting fringe theories on a number of articles, again.

About three weeks ago, after blocking the IP for the second time in two days for posting fringe theories on various articles you wrote "If you resume pushing for your favourite fringe opinions, you will be excluded from our project for good" on the IP's talk page. Well, the IP is at it again, clearly showing that he/she didn't learn anything from his/her blocks. Thomas.W (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul climate chart - annual precipitation

Hi.

The Turkish State Meteorological Service always updates the annual precipitation data for Turkish cities (including in this case Istanbul). The data reflects the year 2012. The source is already in the climate box. The previous user changed it without explanation. I was just reverting that. If you do not object, I will restore th previous data reflecting the annual precipitation data of the city of Istanbul for the year 2012. But before that, I would like your response.

Thanks. Saguamundi (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you check the data in the article against that in the source? I did, and it appeared to be showing the data given by the other editor, not that you reverted back to. These climate data are very often the object of sneaky vandalism, which can be quite difficult to catch; that's why I asked both of you to be careful and always check before making changes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Both sources are from the Turkish State Meteorological Service, and I have checked both. The date I reverted to was not updated for the year 2012. I woud like to update the annual precipitatıon data of the city of Istanbul given by the Turkish State Meteorological Service for the year 2012. Saguamundi (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have a source for that, you're welcome. But the source that is currently cited contained the other set of figures; do you agree with that now? Also, the two sets of figures differed so much from each other that the difference could impossibly be just the kind of shift in average values that results from the factoring-in of the data of one more year, so most likely the set you reverted back to was simply wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Both sources from the Turkish State Meteorological Service, are already present in the climate section as well as at the bottom of the climate chart numbered [85] and [89] respectively. They are in Turkish (with the content having been translated into English for Wikipedia readers), but are from this organization, and thus authoritative. I was using the source from the Turkish State Meteorological Service while reverting – without any explanation and citing it, causing you understandably to question. I apologize. Updating annual precipitation data, as well as other climate data, annually, is a normal practice of state meteorological organizations, and which the Turkish State Meteorological Service does for the cities each year. The data I reverted to, encompasses the whole city of Istanbul. The differences in the annual precipitation data of the city of Istanbul, from one year to the next are very minimal, and they are also quite minimal over the long term, regardless of the dramatic differences in precipitation each year, as it is shown in the source [89]. If you agree, I would like to update it. Thanks. Saguamundi (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain why there are still these two seemingly quite disparate sets of figures, both apparently from the same agency, the one [10] having 100.9, 80.9, 69.6 etc., and the other [11] having 83.4, 65.5, 60.2 etc.? Apparently the first was measured between 1970 and 2010, the second between 1960 and 2012, but that still won't explain how the figures in the one set could be consistently about 10-15% higher than those in the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh

A self-published website by an amateur researcher? you must be joking right? he is one of the best Iranian historians, look on his awards and recognition, only people that do not know anything about him would call him a amateur, maybe you should research about him before saying such things. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Last time I looked, Farrokh was some guy who worked (in some non-research job) at some college in the US. He wrote three books for "Osprey Publishing", a publisher specialized on popularized illustrated pamphlets for militaria enthusiasts (i.e. not serious historical works). The page you quoted is his private, self-published website. The article you quoted is not even by Forrokh himself, but a mirror of an article by a guy called Suren-Pahlav, who became notorious on Wikipedia as a source of massively low-quality and usually plagiarized or copyright-violating material some years ago, so much so that his website ("CAIS") had to be blacklisted here. Anything written by him about Surena is most certainly not reliable. If I remember correctly, Farrokh himself in his "Shadows in the Desert" book also mentions the statue somewhere, but does not claim it represents Surena. As we established a year or two ago on the talkpage of that article, no serious publication in the reliable historical or archaeological literature does this; the only link between the statue and Surena is a meme that's being proliferated by unreliable lay authors on various websites. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Some of my misunderstood edits

Hi, I want to thank you for clarifying and explaining my edit on the article of Hagia Sophia and would like to ask if you also would like to check my explanation concerning "Ottoman statistics of 1910" at [12], where I argued that they contradict other Ottoman official censuses and that the census of 1910 is likely a fabrication. The discussion was with the same users and I failed to explain it to them properly. Could you take a look at this when you have the time.

Furthermore could you have a look at this (I once again failed to explain it): [13] because my point was that if in fact 90% of the Armenians in Erzurum would have been killed in 1895 then the number of dead should be 1 million killed in Erzurum alone, which is as high as the total death count during the entire Armenian Genocide.

Also I have a question about this edit [14], since it changes the order of the comments, making it more difficult for the reader when, what was written.

Finally, if you are willing, could you look at Talk:Yalova Peninsula Massacres (1920–21), because this is where it all began and I think the discussion was similar to the Hagia Sophia column dispute. An important issue was the lowering of casualties from 6,000 to 35.

I'm sorry for bothering you with such a long request.

Kind regards, DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Incubated article deleted

I don't know why you deleted Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Omar Todd.

An explanation in the deletion log is "re-deleting incubated version".  The deletion log for the incubated article shows, "deleted page Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Omar Todd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (3rd nomination))".  The closing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (3rd nomination) states, "The result was delete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)".  So the closing doesn't mention the incubated article.  Why did you not just delete the article in mainspace, which was the subject of the AfD?  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The way I read the AfD, it was basically for both versions of the page, though I'm aware that was procedurally a bit IAR. As you said yourself, there does not seem to be a clear procedural guideline for this kind of situation. But all the discussion in the AfD appeared to apply equally to both versions. Especially in light of the repeated recreations and the previous AfD results, the overall notability concerns must be understood as being about the topic as such, not just about one specific version of its coverage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no way this article ever suitable for the incubator in the first place; it was only incubated because of an oversight by the closing admin at the last DRV and I couldn't be bothered to pursue it. The very fact that this has been to AfD 3 times and DRV once (and been deleted every time) is a firm marker that this article is not for the incubator. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• In this diff, in response to my considered analysis requesting incubation, you characterize the request as "badgering".  The next step in the process was DRV.  The DRV closing rejected your desire to create an AfD.  Just what is the purpose of an AfD where there is agreement that the article should not be in mainspace?  It is not to remove the article from mainspace, so there has to be something more.  What I am starting to see here is a desire to ban topics much as editors get banned.  Part of your involvement here is to object to the close of the DRV, even though you don't identify a specific problem.  Between the lines, you may be objecting that the incubator is used to research and improve articles, when as an admin you think you should have the right to ban topics from Wikipedia.  This is consistent with the out-of-process G4 that was overturned at DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Your argument that previous deletions create a "firm marker" is not a policy or guideline-based argument, rather the Wikipedia policy is WP:CCC.  Notability was not discussed at all at the 2nd AfD, and in the 3rd AfD I explicitly noted that I was not making a notability argument and that there was no need to do so.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I assume the reason you haven't linked to the DRV in question is because anyone following to it would see that no one agreed with you in the discussion. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about the logic there, but there is a good selection of links at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (2nd nomination).  Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about the closing

In regard to the closing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (3rd nomination) and the deletion of the incubated article, an issue here is that you've made an out-of-process deletion that still needs WP:IAR support.  Please bear with me here, below I will first reject your comment about notability in relation to the incubator, then I will open the door to an improved WP:IAR analysis, and conclude with a compromise request.  I am concerned that you've mentioned "the overall notability concerns", as this tells me that you are not clear about why you deleted the incubated article.  One-sided "notability concerns" do not open the door to reach into the incubator, and there is no such thing as a secret consensus.  We have had an AfD with seven spa's, a drive-by !vote, informationectomy, referencectomy, WP:OUTING, three SPIs, and there is still a BLP issue to be reviewed for oversighting.  You've commented on none of these things.  Moving on, against this backdrop, there was a WP:IAR argument made during the AfD, and it was IMO an argument that had merit.  It is not an easy argument, because it is an argument that Wikipedia, as a process made of people, has its limits.  You have mentioned WP:IAR in your first response.  Please explain your WP:IAR position in a way that I and others who read this discussion going forward will understand and know how to interpret it.  If you are not prepared to make that argument, then I request that you restore to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (3rd nomination) the "== References ==" and "== Further reading ==" sections from the incubated article.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• We now know that of the seven spa's, five were one editor.  The sixth openly identifies himself as a meatpuppet.  Yet the proximate cause for the deletion of my work in the incubator is the seventh, the creator of the article.  My compromise offer is reasonable.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• We need to know in the incubator why this article was not speedy deleted.  Thoughts?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection of several letters

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise, In the course of auditing the protection logs, I notice that your protected several greek letters including: Digamma‎, San (letter)‎, Koppa (letter)‎, Stigma (letter)‎, Sho (letter)‎, Gamma‎, Upsilon‎, Phi‎, Chi (letter), Psi (letter)‎. Since you didn't provide a link to an SPI in the log, I have no way of knowing if this sockmaster is still active or not. If not, would you consider lifting the protection? Even if they are, the edit rate is low enough that I believe pending changes is an appropriate level of protection. Regards, Crazynas ^t 09:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

These articles have been favorite targets of the WP:LTA/Wikinger vandal, who has been quite active vandalizing elsewhere on the project lately, so I would honestly prefer to keep them this way. As far as I'm aware, few of these articles have ever had any significant amount of non-vandal input from anon editors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I wasn't sure whom the sock was... Cheers! Crazynas ^t 20:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thessaloniki picture

Hi. I added a picture of many Thessaloniki landmarks but it was changed again. I think this high resolution picture that shows 6 Thessaloniki landmarks is much better than just the White Tower. If you see Athens, it has a picture with many landmarks than just the Acropolis for example. Here's the picture I talk about

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thessaloniki_collage.jpg

Thank you!

Favour

Ya I know, me asking you for a favour. I have been working on trying to fix what I perceive as the issues with the 2002 Gujarat violence article. I would like you to look over the work done so far and perhaps offer some pointers, because believe it or not I know you're a good editor. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Help

Could you please tell me how to not violate the copywriter policy because I am new to Wikipedia and want to add images to visually improve articles. I tried uploaded several images like Malik al-Ashtar's grave.jpg ‎but it got deleted for copywriter issues. Thanks

Deletion of two pictures used in article on Dell PE VRTX

Hi, You deleted two pictures I recently places under 'fair use policy':

01:15, 4 July 2013 Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk contribs) deleted page File:Dell PE VRTX tower version.jpg (F7: Violates non-free use policy)

01:15, 4 July 2013 Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk contribs) deleted page File:Dell PowerEdge VRTX rack system.jpg (F7: Violates non-free use policy)

Normally a bot that removes someones pages/files sends a message to the Talk page of the one who uploaded the file/picture and or when he nominates it for (speedy) deletion. Out of courtesy that does seem to be the thing to do. But I didn't receive anything apart from a single line about 'deletion log' but without any details on what, where and why deleted on that.

(And then another bot removed the references to the (not longer existing) files in the article on Dell PE VRTX and even though I have this article on my Watchlist these changes didn't show up: only when I look at the History of the page I do see the changes made: but that only when I'm already checking on the page where the changes were made.

I don't know if you and Carnildo (or his bot: ImageRemovalBot) are 'linked'. As I don't see any link between you and him I wrote him seperatly about the lack of 'showing on my watchlist': but maybe you have the answer on the questions I asked him. (see Carnildo's talk page for my questions to him. Thanks Tonkie (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot just mechanically checks what files were recently deleted and then removes references to them from articles; as far as I know it does not do notifications. Notifications are usually done when a file is "tagged" as problematic, and thereby earmarked for deletion some days later. In the present case, however, the images were so obviously inappropriate that they fell under a criterion for immediate speedy deletion (WP:CSD#F7: the files were falsely labelled as "historic photographs" and falsely described as intended "for visual identification of the object of the article. The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work", both of which was obviously wrong; they were also obviously replaceable with free images that could be created. Under such circumstances, notifications are not required. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Appeal on block by drg55

Hello, I have appealed your block on me at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_drg55Drg55 (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Omar Todd

Hi. Someone has added an article for Omar Todd and I've suggested it for deletion. It's the fourth creation of Omar Todd article; previous articles have been (filmmaker), (producer) and (politician). I believe you deleted an Omar Todd article yesterday. Not sure how to avoid the spam but I thought I'd appeal to you with the fourth version. PixiePerilot (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. G4'ed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the OP using strikeout as per WP:BE and [15].  User:Thumpgoggles created Omar Todd (actor) as a one-line throwaway article using the account User:AussieBlundit, and then posted using account User:PixiePerilot in order to get the article deleted.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Call for research participants

Hi Fut.Perf. We are a team of researchers studying editing dynamics around the topic of Kosovo. We are looking for users who have edited, discussed or acted in accordance with administrative rights and who would be willing to be interviewed for the purpose of this research project. The project is approved by the Wikimedia Foundations´ Research Committee and you can find more information on this meta-wiki page. Research results will be published under open access and your participation would be much appreciated. If you would like to participate you can reach us at interwikiresearch@gmail.com and we will set up an interview in a way that best suits your needs.Pbilic (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Scythians.

What is wrong with the sources? so you are saying all the sources are not reliable? you kidding me? and also don't forget to take a look on the Khosrau I talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise and HistoryofIran, Please write your opinion about this consensus (Scythians): Here. Thanks. Zyma (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the picture of Khosrau I, please discuss it on the Khosrau I talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think i found a solution, look on talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 Egyptian coup d'état

What is wrong with the image? Its not tagged as a copyvio. Can you explain it there? If the IMAGE is a vio then fair enough, if its the caption then just change it.Lihaas (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Basically all the recently uploaded images of Mansour are copyvios (or NFCC-violating non-free). I suppose you are referring to commons:File:Adly Mansour.jpg; this one has been nominated for deletion on Commons and the consensus is already very clear that it's a copyvio; the only reason it's not been deleted yet is a technical process matter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Wran

Hello. I would like to request that Wran gets blocked for repeated offensive behavior and persistently disruptive editing. Wran has a long history of pointy editing; they keep defending their unconstructive edits to the point of causing a major disruption. They recently violated 3RR [16] not because of some major content dispute but because they wanted to be allowed to violate the MOS. When I notified them [17] about their their misleading edit summaries, they rushed into changing the MOS itself [18]. Whenever I or others ask Wran to justify their edits, they repeatedly decline to do so and start trolling (repeating what I say, rarely adding anything of value to the conversation) [19][20][21] [22][23], making personal attacks [24][25][26][27][28][29][30] (see also the tone they used in the past against other established editors who dared to ask Wran to justify their edits [31][32][33]) and frivolous accusations [34][35][36]. (See also their disorienting comments on talk-pages in which they were asked to give reasons for their unduly tampering with quoted/referenced material in violation of WP:INTEGRITY: i, ii.)

Since Wran arrived on Wikipedia they have employed almost every kind of trolling there is: edit warring, misuse of process (i.e., demanding that others find sources for Wran's own statements) [37][38], misplaced criticism (ranting about WP censorship after they have violated the BLP policy [39]), "correction" of things that are already in conformance with the Manual of Style and the basic rules of grammar [40][41][42], refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors, playing up into flame wars, and making baseless accusations. Obviously, this is not because they are unaware of policy. All those tactics are nothing but a way to avoid scrutiny. It is of importance to note that Wran almost never provides citations for what they insert despite the fact that they are asked to do so [43][44]; exceptions include their employing of circular sourcing [45] (after I had removed an unsourced statement Wran restored it with a citation to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy for Smartphones and Mobile Devices, the content of which primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia) and their adding of a source which "proves" that the "the" is always part of title of the Iliad [46] (another cause for tendentious edit-warring involving five editors). Even if Wran were right in matters of content (which is not the case as I and others have tediously explained in several talk-pages), there should be no tolerance for their employing of trolling and harassment tactics. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Khosrau II

Did what you said and fixed it, try to read it carefully. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Far too close? can do me a favor and help a little bit over here? since i can not replace more words. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually i putted it on my space to fix it.. isn't that even allowed? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can't "fix" those passages. The only clean way is to rewrite them from scratch. Having the old text there in front of you as a model will only prevent you from finding your own expressions. You need to read the contents in that source, understand them, think about them, then put the source away and, without thinking of its actual wording and without looking at it, express what you understood in your own words. The result will have an entirely different sentence structure and your own independent logical progression of ideas. If you find you can't do that, it means you haven't actually understood what the source was saying. This is how basic academic writing works. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, made it completely from scratch, but there are still some words that were used before because there are no other words than these, i have putted it on my space again so you can judge it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on. This is still the exact same sequence of sentences, the exact same structure, and many of the exact same expressions. Can you really not think of alternative ways of saying that person A had a problem with persons B and C possessing too much power, or which offices these two people had, or expressing the idea that A was not willing to leave actual power to those people but insisted on ruling himself? Good lord, I could easily spin off twenty different versions of saying these things in twenty different ways. Is independent writing really so difficult for you? In that case, you ought to consider whether a project whose purpose is to write a serious encyclopedic work really is the best place for you to use your talents, which appear to lie elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Come on, my English is not as good as yours, that may be why, but i will try again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok forget it, i give up, since your English is so good and you know what to change could you do me a favor and use 2 minutes to correct what i did wrong? that would be nice. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well you could just give me a no instead of not answering me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Input

Hi FP and thanks for your 3rd party input into Scythians. Not to labour the point, but the fact i was trying to impress on my unimpressable friend, HoI, is that the Scythians, even in strictu sensu, spoke several different languages, but certainly appear to have had East Iranian as the common / dominant language and langauge of the rulership. Herodotus states that they spoke at least 7 languages, an impression maintained by secondary sources [47]. The whole mumbo-jumbo I was trying to write about their 'diversity' is that the Greeks just slapped this label on almost anyone, and was not a self-contained, clear-cute designation like Franks, Athenians or even Macedonians. Do you think some aspects of this are worthy of brief mention in the leded without prolonging / complicating it unneccesarily ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

drg55 appeal

Hi Fut.

I made comments about you in my appeal, further to Yogesh. Chris Owen was blocked and subequently Prioryman was created after his ip address was unblocked. Therefore it is already open who he is and is relevant in terms of his editing a page on a subject he is antagonistic to. I put in a quote about you because it was there. My solution if we all are open about our affiliations we can continue on.Drg55 (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)