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)

WP:AE#Senkaku Islands

Hello FP. Your topic ban of User:SummerRat has been mentioned in this AE discussion. Since an admin is now proposing to close this AE complaint with bans of User:Oda Mari and User:Lvhis your input would be helpful. It's hard for me to disagree with the additional bans but I'm not too familiar with the background of this case, and am wondering if there is enough rationale provided. If you are familiar with all three editors then perhaps you have an opinion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Abkhazia issues

Hi! Could you take a look at the discussion here? Since the discussion is going nowhere, 3rr report has been ignored and it has already spilled into insults at my talk, I'm kind of at a loss what to do now. Alæxis_¿question? 19:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Future Perfect at Sunrise, dein bekannter Feind hat gerade auf Commons massivst mittels multi-IP zugeschlagen. Weit über 100 Edits mussten revertiert und zudem versteckt werden. Angesichts dieser Drohung in der Edit-Summary[1][2], die ich aus forensischen Gründen momentan noch so belassen habe, solltest du event. rechtliche Schritte erwägen (oder entsprechenden Support bei WMF einholen). --Túrelio (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ja, danke für den Hinweis, auf anderen Wikis ist er auch wieder unterwegs. Wahrscheinlich muss ich wirklich mal anfangen, solche Links systematisch zu sammeln. Lass deshalb ruhig mal ein paar davon offen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hier der zugehörige thread samt Links. --Túrelio (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Request to reconsider your ban

Hi, Fut.perf would you please reconsider your ban? Please allow me to explain my position. And if it's not too much would you explicate your rationale behind imposing the ban? So that I may correct my editing pattern and in the future avoid getting banned again over similar concerns? I really want to have a discussion. I really do. I think the ban should not seem punitive in nature. I am not saying it seems punitive now but yeah I admit I was upset for quite some time over this ban, now, I think, I am not so upset any more I have managed to take it in. So, would you help me understand the faults? Mr T^(Talk?) 07:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I have made my concerns about your editing very clear, several times, both in explaining the ban and previously when I warned you. Others have done the same. Your repeated claims that you don't understand these reasons don't make the situation better. You have been editing tendentiously, and if you are unable to recognize how and why your edits have been tendentious, then that's unfortunately only one more reason to keep you restricted from editing in this area. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We must agree that while talking about DUE and UNDUE weight we are essentially treading on the domain of personal opinions and the subjects I volunteer to edit are already very emotive and controversial, hence it is very hard to not let the decisions be clouded by emotion. Believe me I am telling you I, in good-faith, miscalculated the weight of that statement of the witness.

That article was, and still is, about a highly emotive topic. It is fairly likely that people will see tendentiousness in almost every change in the content. And it's very hard for any editor to assess the neutrality of the edits he or others perform. In this scenario would you be kind enough to reconsider your ban? Why are you precluding the possibility of good faith on my part?

• Okay, I am going to explain the issue here as I see it (pardon my candour),

The political articles I recently edited are Narendra Modi, 2002 Gujarat violence, Godhra train burning, etc. When I glanced over the edits in these articles and proposals/demands on their talks, I learnt that bias is absolutely rife in those pages and that's why I thought the bar for meeting "tendentious editing" must be very, very high and I saw that sanctions are enforced sparingly and leniently. Also when I, as a beginner, saw some of the editors do it again and again with impunity, it only reinforced my idea that the leniency is prevalent in these article. The applicability of guidelines became blurry because of the inaction, leniency of some admins. You cannot really blame me for following suit especially because those before me were not banned at the right time for committing worse contraventions. I have been watching this cat-and-mouse game for quite some time and now when I perform an edit, that is perhaps a tendentious edit, I am blocked banned right-away.
The thing is I never learnt what actually was inside the periphery of neutrality because of the lack of intervention and sometimes even acquiescence from the admins, you know? Please believe me, I am still learning how to navigate these murky waters. This ban is only making it even more confusing because I just cannot intellectualize the disparity I am seeing.

I am not saying others' misconduct or violation excuse my own. All I am saying is please understand my predicament and give me a chance. I am a reasonable guy and I am amenable to any well-founded, logical discussion. In fact you yourself may counsel me on how to avoid being perceived as a biased editor. I encourage you to trout me whenever you feel I am over-stepping any guideline. But please lift the ban and let me edit those articles, I promise I will try to be as neutral as humanly possible. Mr T^(Talk?) 14:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Mrt, you wouldn't know neutral if it hit you in the face. Worse, your excitability is exactly the sort of thing that turns the articled to which you refer into emotive messes. - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow what a constructive and informative reply, I am enlightened. This sort of commentary is what bothers me. Why do you pass judgements on me? I disagree with you but does that give you the right to vilify me this way? Why do you assume bad faith? Mr T^(Talk?) 14:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sitush, i know it sounds very cool, but you do realise that making snide remarks can never improve the situation? (refering to your first sentence) Even if you don't want to hear out Mrt anymore, you can ignore or remain silent, or best, provide constructive criticism. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 15:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Anir, my remarks may have been blunt but they were not snide. The situation will be improved by Mrt's absence from the topic area. They've had the constructive criticism previously and yet continue even now to argue the toss. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No sir, the remarks were pretty snide. You alluded to a disability.

"The situation will be improved by Mrt's absence from the topic area" - again a big claim and I feel it was not needed. Mr T^(Talk?) 17:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I was neither aware of an allusion nor aware that you have a disability. Nor does a disability somehow exempt you from displays of tendentiousness and POV that continue despite numerous attempts to explain the problems. For esample, there are autistic contributors who have been blocked because the unfortunate effect of their health on their editing was considered to be a net negative. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, can I have an uninterrupted discussion with FPAS if you don't mind? I don't think your comments are needed here. Mr T^(Talk?) 18:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Mrt, tendentious editing is not a matter of a single edit. A single edit isn't tendentious, as tendentiousness is a pattern. If you're debating the classification of a single edit, then you clearly don't understand Fut.Perf's reasoning. In addition, there is no differing set of bars for actions. If you're looking for a "periphery" of neutrality, you clearly don't understand what neutrality is. Editing neutrally means you're not trying to fit a certain point of view in. CMD (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you have fully understood my reasoning. "A single edit isn't tendentious, as tendentiousness is a pattern" - I am saying that pattern either doesn't exist or exists in everywhere in those articles. I am using tendentious as in "expressing a particular opinion or point of view, especially when many disagree with it". I am not saying that I am tendentious I am saying that edit could be perceived as tendentious.
"If you're looking for a "periphery" of neutrality" - I am not but it's not a dot either. And you do know that "neutrality" is a very complicated issue, right? I am looking for a range, if you will. Mr T^(Talk?) 17:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Tendentiousness isn't a pattern in articles, it's a pattern of an editor's actions. Your interpretation of it as "expressing a particular opinion or point of view, especially when many disagree with it" is incorrect, many editors do this without tendentious editing. Again, a single edit isn't perceived as tendentious, a pattern is tendentious. Neutrality as a principle isn't complicated at all. There's no "range" of neutrality, there's neutrality and trying to push a POV, whether subtly or overtly. If you feel you can't edit a subject neutrally, you shouldn't edit it. CMD (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me but from your comment it seems that any form of disagreement is a sign of tendentiousness. If think that "expressing a particular opinion or point of view, especially when many disagree with it" can be done without tendentious intentions then you actually agree with me.
"There's no "range" of neutrality" - I am saying that since absolute neutrality is pretty hard to attain and arguably impossible, there is a range of ways we can edit articles without always breaching the NPOV-policy. If you don't concur, then, hey, let's agree to disagree. Mr T^(Talk?) 18:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how my comment can be interpreted the way you are interpreting it. You're still completely misunderstanding tendentiousness. It's not about intentions; one doesn't usually aim to be tendentious. It's a pattern that emerges from actions. Whether or not absolute neutrality is impossible, if you're looking for the boundaries of neutrality, then you're very clearly not editing in a neutral manner. What it implies, and what other editors will see, is just a way to try and get a certain POV presented as prominently as possible (hence Sitush's comment above). Perhaps instead of being argumentative with those trying to advise you (an attitude which helps you not at all), you should try to take a break and think upon all the issues raised by multiple editors; try and see the issue from other sides rather than just arguing it from yours. Good luck, CMD (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Cmd is right, tendentiousness isnt about intentions, it isnt even about right or wrong, it is about what fellow editors perceive an editors editing. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Mt. T, FuP may not like the use of his page for this would you copy this discussion to your talk page leaving a talk back at each participant's page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• "It's a pattern that emerges from actions." - so what? One may perceive many patterns in my editing. Since when is an attempt to balance a POV claim regarded as POV disruption itself? I try to balance articles that have certain types of biases. Why is that a bad thing? My point is when fellow editors themselves are sensitive to an emotional subject they can perceive any editor's editing as tendentious. It's not that hard to grasp, is it? The conversation should focus on how that user's tendencies are causing disruption. Many keep on bringing up how I was advised about my tendentiousness (before ban? where?) and I was argumentative to the ones trying to advise me. Well just requesting someone to substantiate something which they alleged is not necessarily a sign of argumentativeness. Perhaps, CMD will disagree on this too. Allegations were levelled against me but nowhere were they elucidated or substantiated. Mr T^(Talk?) 06:48, 28 June 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)

Notice

There is a discussion where you're named as a party. You may find it here. Please comment if you will. Mr T^(Talk?) 07:37, 28 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[3][4]). During that case, User:STSC arose from a six-month hibernation to defend Bobby fletcher[5]. User then started advocating for the same content on Tiananmen Square[6], and making personal attacks at Talk:Falungong[7]. 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:[8][9] 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[10][11]. "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 [12] having 100.9, 80.9, 69.6 etc., and the other [13] 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 [14], 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): [15] 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 [16], 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)

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)

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)