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.

Could you "semi-protect" the Istanbul article for the time being from anonymous users. It is constantly attacked and vandalized. I have never seen such constant onslaught on a city article.

Could you "semi-protect" the Istanbul article for the time being from anonymous users. It is constantly attacked and vandalized. I have checked the history of editions and I have never seen such constant referenceless changes and attacks on a city article in Wikipedia, I have never seen such constant onslaught on a city article, not even hotly contested Jerusalem comes close! Any contribution one makes is either changed with no explanation or erased altogether.

Even the climate section I (currently) last edited, has been previously constantly changed with no reason and attacked. Even this section seems to be a "hot political issue"!

I am a new user orginally from Turkish Wikipedia and try to base the editions I make on credible sources.

Thank you if you could protect this articles for more well meaning users for a while.

Menikure

Moved discussion

(Moved from User talk:Lar)

I noticed you still haven't answered the question about ChrisO's conduct, both in incivility and 3RR violations. Why is Minor4th and I in your sights, but blatent violations such as his are not? The only reasonable conclusion is that you are biased. Please explain why you won't address this. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

First off: I don't do civility sanctions. Not my line of business. I find civility policing for the most part inane, unproductive and too often used as a club to silence vigorous debate. If you want sanctions against somebody for incivility, you need to ask somebody else. I didn't propose sanctioning you or Minor for incivility, so I don't see why you would have any problem about me not sanctioning others for it.

That said, here's your diffs: "(1) having to deal with someone whose knowledge appears to be well below high school level.; (2) Frankly I would prefer you not to, given your previous editing in this topic area. - warned by Lar to be more civil; (3) Minor4th has been making false claims that I've been "edit warring". (note that the page was then protected for edit warring); (4) See salami tactics for what's going on here., salami tactics being a derogatory reference to divide and conquer; (5) *Bollocks. He said nothing of the sort. Don't invent things, Mark." Starting from the end. (5) was an error for which he later apologized. Dealt with. (4) is not objectionable in the least, certainly not incivil. In (3), Chris is right, you are (and were) wrong. Chris made two reverts, possibly three (technically). Here's the history of the page:

1. Chris starts the page
2. several others, including Minor4th, make bold edits. (Legit in principle; no more and no less unilateral than anything Chris did before and after; but in Minor4th's case, partly quite tendentious)
3. Chris' second sequence of edits, involving partial reverting and partial reworking of Minor's edits (that's technically a revert, but much less aggressive/unconstructive than a blanket rv)
4. Minor4th blanket-reverts everything Chris did, citing "BRD". (Of course, if M. reverts here, they can hardly complain of Chris reverting earlier. And a blanket rv is always more of an aggressive act than a partial reworking revert.)
5. Chris blanket-reverts. (Yes, that's an aggressive, edit-warring-type rv, but not worse than the previous)
6. You blanket-revert. (That's clearly edit-warring at this point, and your invoking of "BRD" was abusive: BRD is never an excuse for second and subsequent reverts, no matter whether the other side has kept to the BRD protocol or not.) At this point, it's two reverts for Chris and two for you and Minor. You were even. I'm counting the two of you together, because you were clearly acting in tag-team.
7. Chris resumes editing, marking his edits as attempted compromises. I don't know how much in that sequence was technically again a revert, but I have no reasons to doubt it was indeed a good-faith attempt at finding acceptable compromises, and as such not aggressive edit-warring.
8. Chris reverts several times against a putative Scibaby sock. Reverts of banned users don't count, as you well know. You may disagree with the practice of treating apparent Scibaby socks as such on sight, but that's the usual practice, and two entirely neutral admins subsequently validated Chris' decision (by blocking the sock, and protecting the page). Your claim that the page was subsequently "protected for edit-warring" is patently wrong: it wasn't protected for edit-warring, but semi-protected against the socks. That vindicates Chris' edits, rather than reflect negatively on them.

So, your or Minor's claims that Chris was edit-warring were baseless, and Chris was right to complain about them.

Going back to diff (2): not incivil in the least. Certainly not particularly friendly, but not incivil. Finally (1): if Chris feels Marknutley's poor knowledge of history is a pertinent fact in explaining the problems in the matter of that RfC, then of course he needs to be able to talk about that problem in some way. It's never a particularly friendly thing to talk about somebody else's incompetence, but when it's pertinent it's necessary. I don't know what particular gaps in knowledge M.n. had shown (something about the democratic constitution of early north American states, I gather), and I don't know if those things are supposed to be high school level stuff in US education; maybe that phrase was a bit of a rhetorical exaggeration, but judging from what I've seen of M.n. I can't say I find it implausible that the charge was correct in principle.

So much for that. And no, I for one will not userfy that article for you. I didn't "cherry-pick" links but gave you exactly those that were obviously pertinent: the two reinsertions of the offending material. If you need anything else in particular, let me know and I'll look it up.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit-warring complaint was about a completely separate page, see this diff, at Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, with ChrisO complaining here after Minor4th brought up the same editing pattern[3][4] as in the Virginia article. The diff I cited originally had nothing to do with the article you referred to, but to the Monckton article, as is clearly shown in the diff. As to the purported sock, the evidence consists of "The usual" and there has not been a check-user completed. If this is a new user, they may have been fed up enough to just walk away. If it is a sock, then by all means, they should be blocked, but blocking someone based on "The usual" is by no means providing any useful evidence of sock-puppetry, and the problem with the activist faction is that anyone that disagrees is subject to being sent to an SPI. The supposed sock in this case removed a sentence that was unsupported by a ref, and the very first response by ChrisO was that it was an obvious Scibaby sock. How is it obvious from one edit that the user was a sock? As far as diff #1, that is obviously an uncivil remark, stating that someone has less than a high school education. It is blatant. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 14:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I must have misread something then about the edit-warring claim (probably because Minor kept making similar accusations about the other article too, IIRC). Okay, I count four reverts by Chris, if I include the first he made against the IP, towards the end of all that. Apart from that, I see several people trying to make productive edits in quick succession, but no hostile edit-warring between them, and Minor4th (as Chris rightly remarked) making shrill protests from the sidelines, not because he had any concrete objections against Chris' edits, but because it was Chris who was doing the editing. A neutral administrator dealt with the situation, explicitly declining to sanction anybody, evidently because he recognised it was essentially a constructive and good-faith editing spree between several persons. So, what's it to me? And yes, when Minor4th claimed Chris had made 7 reverts, he had in reality made 4, so Minor's accusation was, indeed, false. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to get anyone sanctioned and my concrete objection was that Chris reverted 7 times. I was not the only one who complained either -- and the reason my shrill objections were being made about Chris is because it was Chris who was reverting like a madman and making edits at the speed of light when the article had just come off protection. Are you really going to say that editing was not appropriate? It's why the article got protected again. A neutral editor dealt with the situation by protecting the article again -- my accusation as indeed not false at all. It was 7 reverts. Diffs [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. [10]. [11], [12] Ok, actually it was 8 reverts and that is not including the one BLP revert. Minor4th 20:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What part of "Reverts of banned users don't count, as you well know" is unclear? And I thought we were making a fresh start? "I... apologize as well for not assuming good faith in your actions. I have decided to make a more concerted effort to assume good faith on your part and see if that helps the situation." [13] That didn't last long, did it? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to fight with you, and I have assumed good faith since I said that -- so in that spirit, I am not going to counter what you said or try to make another point at all. I would not have mentioned you except for the fact that I'm being taken to task over this past incident with you. So maybe we all ought to just let it lie? Minor4th 23:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Sleeping dogs and all that. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th: subsequent edits in a row always count as one when it comes to counting reverts. I thought you knew that. If you didn't, you know it now. – Chris: was the IP on the Monckton article also a banned user? (not that it matters much now, just for the sake of clarity.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup. The IP appears to have been Monckton himself, who was indeffed a long time ago for legal threats and chronic COI problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Haven't read any of the above but I did want to apologize for calling you "she" -- it has nothing to do with you blocking me. I think it is the word "sunrise" in your user name and for some reason that made me think female. Minor4th 06:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. BTW, the explanation for the "sunrise" is here [14]. Oh and, I only noticed afterwards that Lar had been referring to you as "she", when I'd been using "he" all the time, so sorry if that was wrong too? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OT: Thank you for making me watch some old Loriot sketches - i had forgotten how hilarious they were. (the yodeling one is here[15]) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah, not wrong. Lar calls me he, she and they. I don't bother correcting. Minor4th 06:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

When I called BRD, it was my first revert. I posted that on the talk page even before I made the edit. Minor4th 06:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, never said anything against that. It was a first revert. Not a very constructive one in the context (as I said, that's an issue of blanket revert vs. going to the effort of making only partial reverts), but in and by itself it was obviously nothing to worry much about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, for the record, my comments concerning Marknutley's lack of knowledge related to some of the diffs that Pmanderson posted, especially this one in which MN asserts that "The Greek city states were not democracys [sic]." Honestly, the mind boggles - who does he think invented the concept of democracy, and where does he think the word came from? You would think that someone who wants to edit an article called List of wars between democracies would actually have some idea of history and (even if he doesn't know all the details) would be sufficiently motivated to open an encyclopedia - heck, even look it up on Wikipedia - and get the facts. This is extreme incompetence, both in terms of a lack of knowledge and also in terms of an apparent intellectual laziness in not being willing to look up a basic fact that a high school kid should know. You've heard of the sword-skeleton theory? Case in point. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris that is really not nice at all. Please don't be so insulting. Minor4th 10:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it has to be said. If Marknutley does not know enough about a subject to be able to contribute effectively he should either (a) educate himself about it or (b) stay out of it. The problem is that either of those outcomes requires him to be aware that he is not contributing effectively. It's for just this reason that I avoid editing articles where I don't know anything about the subject matter. I'm well aware that I'm not competent to contribute to them. There's a famous learning model (see [16]) which I think is relevant in this sort of situation. In the language of that model, Marknutley seems to be at the stage of "unconscious incompetence" in relation to historical knowledge. If he becomes aware of this, he can get to the stage of conscious incompetence. This is the stage I'm at with topics I don't know enough about to be able to contribute competently. I assume by default that I'm consciously incompetent in a new topic area, unless it happens to be one I'm already familiar with. Mark seems to assume competence in all topic areas, which is why he makes ridiculous howlers like the one I pointed out above. If Mark wants to be able to do competent editing on such topics, he needs to study it so that he can achieve conscious competence and ultimately, hopefully, unconscious competence. The whole point of an RfC is to point out where an editor is failing; by doing so, he has a chance to remedy the problem. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Old vandalism

You say "how did this slip through" for re some 4-month-old vandalism. I don't think this is all that rare. I recently corrected two two-year-old vandalizations: childish name change and probably politically motivated.

There are also good-faith content errors which have persisted for quite long times. For example, editor Wetman believes (mistakenly, I think) that Urrecht means "(supposed) rights to territories inhabited since 'time immemorial'"; whereas it actually seems to mean "natural law" (synonymous with Naturrecht). discussion This has made it into two articles: one incorrectly, the other correctly (but ambiguously). --Macrakis (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, not sure about the urrecht, but I'm sure you're right about the old vandalism. Sigh. BTW, does a dictionary definition of urrecht help? [17] Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely

...both with your suggestion on my talk page (meta-irony notwithstanding), and with your action at Hipocrite's talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

FP: you should either have left it all for Hip or you should remove all the problematic comments. Leaving some behind shows your partisanship. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed those in which the polemic and inflammatory portions (from either side) appeared to be the predominant element. Dave souza's was primarily about reasonable advice and opinion about civility issues, and only contained some rather mild and factual criticism of Greg and yourself. Your own comments were removed because (a) they were part of a thread that had begun with some nastiness already from the other side, (b) you were fighting with TOAT rather than saying anything constructive to Hypocrite, and (c) you had been asked to stay off his page anyway. Which is a request I'll repeat to you now (and if you don't want to do it voluntarily, you can get it in form of an official administrative warning too.) Also, you should of course not be removing postings whose only possibly objectionable aspect was that they contained some criticism of yourself. Really, what were you thinking? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I object to the criticism of me that are left in there, if the factual criticism of other editors about ChrisO and Hipocrite is redacted. It is not fair, and it appears that you are taking sides in the matter. GregJackP Boomer! 21:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop digging yourself deeper. And yes, I am taking sides. I am taking sides in favour of using Hipocrite's page for the sole legitimate purpose that it now has, while he is upset and away: saying constructive things to him that are likely to reconcile him and the community. Nobody should be using that page for fighting out other issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

FP: you should either have left it all for Hip or you should remove all the problematic comments. Leaving some behind shows your partisanship. Not much more to say, really. That comment of dave souza's needs to go too. Be a mensch instead of a factionary. ++Lar: t/c 23:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. Dave's wasn't problematic. Yours was. What is problematic on that page and what isn't isn't for you to judge, because you are deeply involved in a personal conflict with H. End of story. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's not your place to judge either, as you are deeply involved (if we use your metric), and you've taken sides as well, something I've not done. So, removing all or none was the right approach. None being preferable. I realize you're not going to concede your bias. ++Lar: t/c 14:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Repeating it another million times will not make it truer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing will "make it truer" since it's already completely true. I realize you're not going to concede your bias, though, so further repetition is pointless, unless you do something similar in future, in which case further action beyond talk may be necessary. Hope that helps clarify matters. As for being "deeply involved in a personal conflict" with Hip, that assumes facts not in evidence. Hip acts badly from time to time and I call him on it. That's not personal conflict, that's run of the mill adminship. ++Lar: t/c 15:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment noted

[18] It wasn't my intention to do so, but you are right, i shouldn't have commented at all. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're in the mood

I just noticed a heated discussion on Talk:Congress_of_Berlin#Ethnographic_maps, which is about to get ugly quite fast. I know you had to deal with similar situations in the past, so you might be the best person to resolve the dispute. You're bound to find it quite familiar and easy to deal with. I know you're somewhat busy, but if you're in the mood...--Laveol ^T 21:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

and apparently also against special rules that had been agreed here

Not that I know. What are you talking about? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to something BozMo linked to in your talk page, at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive4#Comment refactoring. It looked to me like it gained consensus at the time. Let me know if it didn't – I'm not too familiar with all the goings-on in this area over the last months. (Even if it didn't, the main point still stands, btw.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

PA

I draw your attention to [19] William M. Connolley (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Unnice indeed. However, please have a look at what I said at the beginning of the thread #Moved discussion above – I'm not normally very interested in doing civility sanctions. Probably that's because I'm so much of a grumpy incivil old bastard myself. Not really worth rising to the bait. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Please

Please stop the situation at RFE. Lar and Franamax should not be allowed to comment so long as they are also agressively excluding other admins through wikilawyering, particularly with the arbcom case sorting this out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polargeo (talk • contribs)

(archive time stamp:) 17:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be afraid, little user

(Not giving the IP) but your meta-complaint on User talk:TenOfAllTrades is so true, and so elegant. Deserves to sit in Bishzilla's pocket together with Heimstern Läufer's incivility essay ! bishzilla _ROARR!! 01:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC).

Hey guys. Seems my ears were burning! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. By the way, I hope Her Zillaness doesn't object to my taking her name in vain here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha. [Bishzilla getting peckish. Absentmindedly eats the dead horse. ] Heimstern Läufer grand master of paths and thickets of wikipedia! Impressive! bishzilla _ROARR!! 18:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC).

Nuke request

Thanks for that. Photos from five different DSLRs just wasn't right. XLerate (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

ban

im here to improve wikipedia articles. you cant give me a ban, bacause you have not any reason for that.--Finn Diesel (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can most certainly be blocked if you continue revert-warring, and most likely will. It has nothing to do with your subjective desire to improve Wikipedia articles, but with your failure to communicate constructively to reach consensus with others. But I notice you have self-reverted your latest edit, which I thank you for, hoping I can take this as a signal of good will on your side. This said, I'd probably not be doing any blocks myself anyway at this point, because in the meantime (after I warned you) I also opted to engage in the content discussion on that page, as you may have seen, so I'm no longer as "uninvolved" as I was. That doesn't mean you shouldn't heed the warning though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Finn, I got quite swiftly blocked by Fut. Perf. soon after I started here. Since then I've come to realise he's one of the better admins here. It's a good idea to listen to his advice. Varsovian (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

he may be a good person or admin but he doesn't allow people to improve articles.--Finn Diesel (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that what you view as an improvement may not be viewed the same way by others. We have to collaborate with others here, not just do whatever each of us individually thinks is right. That's what our edit warring policies, which are indeed grounds for blocking, exist. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

dear admin, the copyright problem about "File:Buda es Attila.JPG" has been fixed. please protect the page against Richard. as we all know he is not here to improve medival european history. thanks.--Finn Diesel (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see that the OTRS people have yet processed and approved of the copyright info. It's still marked as "pending" (although I have to admit it's a shame it's taking this long.) But independently of that, there is now also a content dispute over whether the image is suitable for the article. Several users have said they just don't see it as a useful addition to the page. And since I have expressed my own editorial opinion on this, and agree with the objections, I will of course not take admin action about it, either for or against the inclusion. But as an editor, I ask you to respect the consensus against the image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

i respect all users and all art works in wikipedia but i cant see any respect to Hungarian art works in articles. it is not an acceptable policy for Hungarian users in wikipedia..--Finn Diesel (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

See, when you get to the point your edits are based on nationality, ethnicity and the like, we've got a problem. The point of Wikipedia is to leave all your national perspectives at the door and edit free of your national POV. Of course, no one can ever really achieve this perfectly, but at least getting close will allow it to be checked by others. "it is not an acceptable policy for Hungarian users" suggests editing for the sake of nationality and not neutrality. That just isn't how things work here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Block

Thanks for unblocking me, I was convinced people were happy to see me blocked. If I was still blocked (and was still blocked until 5 pm tomorrow) I would not have had a chance to apologise and try to sort something out and expand an article. I'm not saying what I said was acceptable nor thatI shouldn't have been blocked but I do think that something needs to be done and something written into the NPA criteria which distinguishes between a provoked or unprovoked attack. I'm happy to forget this situation but I think that the blocking criteria should be reduced to 6 hours for such an obvious comment used in frustration at receiving a speedy warning. There is a difference between launching a full scale personal attack/rant at somebody innocent and saying something unplesant in the spur of the moment in removing an article warning I think. That's not to say that it is acceptable to attack or call anybody any name but I do believe there is a difference and I think in future this should be a criteria for deciding upon blocking duration. What happened earlier was a moment of anger/frustration and did not need 24 hours or even an hour for me to calm down. Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Really need your help

With your thoughts on biographies of footballers and everyone else. User_talk:Sulmues#Kosovo_as_country_of_birth. Usually I come to you when I'm lost. Thanks! --Sulmues ^(talk) 22:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:2007apm

I got an e-mail from User:2007apm asking me to take a look at the block carried out following this SPI (February 2010). The initial e-mail was back in February 2010 and nothing was done then, but the user e-mailed again recently (August 2010) and I'd like to try and sort this out. Would you be able to take a look at this and see how strong you think the evidence is connecting the accounts? The dates of editing don't quite seem to match the usual pattern here as far as I can tell. I'm asking you because you blocked most of the Emperordarius socks. I've asked the blocking admin and SPI clerk User:MuZemike to have a look as well. You could both comment on his talk page where he has filed several unblock requests that were declined without considering whether the initial identification as a sock was correct or not. If there is evidence that shouldn't be discussed on-wiki (to avoid revealing how certain behavioural identifications are made) please feel free to e-mail me. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I've commented on his page. This doesn't look like a convincing sock case to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If you are still around, could you e-mail me, as I need to discuss a few other aspects of this, including explaining some of the material he just posted on his talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to e-mail me, although I have to say it's getting quite late at night here and I had probably better go to bed soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've replied. You probably have enough information now, but (obviously!) feel free to go to bed, I should get some sleep as well. :-) Sorting this out can wait until tomorrow if need be, another day won't hurt after 6 months. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

You are mentioned (in a nice way). Keep up the good work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Toddst1_misconduct RIPGC (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What!

You didn't even give me a chance to speak. How is that fair or appropriate behaviour for any administrator. (olive (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

You misunderstand the nature of AE, and of discretionary sanctions. AE is not a court of law, and discretionary sanctions are not bound to any particular process involving extensive discussion. AE only exists as a convenience measure to alert admins to situations that otherwise they wouldn't notice, and to provide a format for discussion if discussion is needed. Discretionary sanctions can be enacted any time, by anybody, even quite "out of the blue". And it is my conviction that they work best when they are fast and immediate. Don't worry, I spent a considerable amount of time looking at the situation today, and I think I have a fairly clear understanding what's going on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not misunderstand, that you did not give me a fair chance to comment. Nor could you possibly understand what is going on those pages. If you do and acted as you did then I have serious misgiving about your neutrality. I can only assume that you acted thinking you knew what the situation was. I will say again you sanctioned me unfairly based on a generalized complaint with out giving me time to rebutt whatever the allegations were. I don't even know that. I find this entire situation to be unconscionable.(olive (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Could you change your wording in "bizarre dialogue about twisting other editors' words"

It would be sufficient that you say "bizarre dialogue". Otherwise, I see it as a support for Yobol's attack against me, which is breaking policy. All the statements on my side in this dialogue was centred on what the other editor wrote (in diffs). I never attacked the editor personally. I never suggested that he creates a bad environment. I never accused him of twisting my words. There was no confusion possible about what Yobol wrote in these diffs. They were very simple statements, not subject to misinterpretation or "twisting". Yobol kept saying that his position about the lead did not change. Fine, but his non ambiguous statements were nevertheless highly relevant in the ongoing discussion about this lead. In particular, the statement http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=376686243&oldid=376684444 was about the article, but it also had a strong implication on the lead because of WP:LEAD. However, Yobol was not aware of all aspects of this discussion, so it could not appreciate that. I don't understand why he accused me of twisting his words. This is a personal attack against me. It breaks policy. Please do not do the same. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why you object: it was a piece of bizarre dialogue, and it was clearly about the topic of twisting other editors' words. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am saying, please, remove this part where you mention Yobol's accusation. It has been very unpleasant and I think the best is to have people forget about it. Isn't it the policy that when there is accusations like that, one should edit the text to remove them. So, in the same line of thought, please don't mention it again. Please. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of another editor twisting one's own words is not a personal attack. It's a piece of criticism. People twist other people's words on Wikipedia all the time. Usually not on purpose. It happens. It's no reason for drama. If somebody else tells you they feel you have been twisting their words, the best response is to make an effort to stop twisting their words. Which is what I recommend you do. Not to raise even more drama over it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't twist his words at all, but of course I would certainly be careful to never do that, more than ever before. I would really appreciate that you take out the twisting part. Why can't you do that? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about Photo

Thanks for your post on the photo notice board. You have recommended asking the company who issued the photo to send an email giving permission to Wikipedia. I can try to arrange that. My question is do they need to also send the photo in the email? Or is the email itself enough? Thank you for your assistance.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

E-mail alone is fine; it should just identify the photograph clearly by wiki filename or link to it. It's also crucial that it specifies exactly which license it is to be placed under. Recommended license CC-BY-SA. Please make sure when you contact the owners they need to be aware that they are allowing its use not just on Wikipedia but re-use anywhere else for any purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the info. I'll see if I can get this taken care of.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok I have sent them an email with all the pertinent details. How will I know if/when the send the proper email to permission-en@wikimedia.org? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. The mail will be processed by volunteers on our OTRS ticketing system, which, unfortunately, has something of a backlog, I'm told. If the owners tell you the ticket number they received, we can add a provisional tag about that on the image page. If OTRS response should be delayed and the image happens to get deleted before things are clarified, don't worry, just give me a note once the info is there and I'll undelete it for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

London victory parade of 1946

The article currently says: The only allied countries not represented at the parade were USSR, Yugoslavia, and Poland. In my opinion there should be another sentence there clarifying that unlike USSR or Yugoslavia, Poland had a large army on the Western front which fought together with the Brits.  Dr. Loosmark  18:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet or reincarnation account

Does this contribution history look a touch questionable to you? [20] It appears possible that that the user may be sockpuppet or reincarnation account, possibly connected to [[21]]. Varsovian (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

London victory parade of 1946

Thank you for your work on this article. Generally your edit is very good and my suggestions are mainly wordsmithing.

1. "Polish allied forces" I think that the word "allied" is redundant: it is rather unlikely that Polish axis forces would have been invited.
2. "These forces had been loyal to the Polish government-in-exile" This should probably be past simple rather than past perfect (at the time of the parade the vast majority of those forces were still loyal to the govt-in-ex, which the article can reflect by use of the past simple. To be historically and grammatically accurate, at least 89,300 of those forces had been loyal to the German govt as they had served in German armed forces; probably it’s best that the article doesn’t reflect that).
3. "given diplomatic recognition to the new communist Provisional Government of National Unity in Poland" Firstly it is a factual error to call the TRJN "communist": the majority of its members were not from the communist party. Secondly, it was internationally recognised, On 16 October, delegates of the TRJN signed the United Nations Charter and Poland became a member of the United Nations.
4. "a small number of pilots of the Polish figher squadrons in the Royal Air Force" Firstly could you please fix the spelling of ‘fighter’. Secondly, the invitation was actually limited only to representatives of Poles who had flown in the Battle of Britain. Thirdly, of the 145 such pilots, 25 were invited: that is 17%, a higher proportion that any other unit.
5. "The official Polish government, in turn, along with the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia[8], chose not to send a delegation, citing the invitation to the pilots as its reason to stay away." That was actually given as a reason after the parade had taken place, perhaps add the word ‘later’ (as in "later citing")?
6. "all Polish forces effectively excluded." Exclude means ‘prevent from entering/taking part’: Polish forces made no attempt to take part and thus could not have been prevented from doing so, in fact they were invited and decided not to participate.
7. One notable omission: "The airmen, however, refused to accept the invitation in protest against the omission of the other branches of the Polish forces." No representatives from any armies or navies from non-Commonwealth/Empire countries were invited. Perhaps the article should reflect that western command Poles were not being singled out when representative of their army and navy were not invited.
   

Again, thank you for your work. Varsovian (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Following the comments below (please advise if I can not respond to them): 1) I'm happy to leave the word allied in "Polish allied forces", I just think it is redundant (let's not go into the topic of Poles in the German armed forces here); 2) at the time of the parade the majority of the members of the TRJN were not communists, what happened to Mikolajczyk et al after the parade is not relevant for this article; 3) I do not suggest that we give the percentage, my point was that the number of pilots invited was not small given the size of the contribution (25 was also the number of eastern command Poles and a lot more than 145 of them took part in the war); 4) I can agree that "Polish forces were in effect not included." that is an accurate statement of fact, unlike stating that they were "excluded"; 5) I'm not sure what point is referred to there so I can not make any comment. Varsovian (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Some points noted. Could I have a clarification then:

1. What exactly would the normal, expected form of participation have been, compared with that of other non-Commonwealth nations that had fought in the West? A flag plus honour guard like the Greek one shown in the photograph? And was that what the Polish government had been invited to send?
2. When the pilots protested and decided to stay away, what exactly were their expectations? (a) they already knew that the Polish government wouldn't participate? (b) they expected the Polish government to participate but felt it didn't legitimately represent them? (c) they felt there should be a larger delegation, including extra representation of the army and navy comparable to their own? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The invitations were sent do Soviet puppet government in Warsaw and its formations, only when it didn't respond the British sent after controversy invitations to individual Polish soldiers who fought in the West who could attend, not to any Polish formations. So in effect you wouldn't have any Polish formations represented officially, just some individual soldiers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

1. From what can be seen in film of the event (links to such were once in the article) and the official program (which lists all participants) representation for non-Commonwealth/Empire nations was a flag and honour guard (as shown in the photo) and not to individual services or units (with the exception of certain selected Allied air forces). According to a written reply the British Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a question in the House of Commons "the Polish Government have been invited to send a contingent of three high-ranking officers, three aides-de-camp or staff officers and a flag party of three men, followed by a detachment of 24 men representative of the Polish fighting services". That would seem to be approximately the same size as the Greek representation in the photo.
2. a)Dr Mark Ostrowski quotes The Times newspaper here as saying "The Polish Government accepted, but the contingent has not yet arrived. Unfortunately, it seems that none of the Polish servicemen who fought in the West under British command will take part. Polish airmen who took part in the Battle of Britain were invited, but they do not wish to march unless Polish soldiers and sailors of the Western Command can march with them." so it appears that the invitation to Western Poles was rejected before the Polish govt. declined to participate.
   

2b)Rudolf Falkowski, a Polish pilot in 635, 639 and 303 squadrons says here "At the time, we couldn’t get over the fact, that the British Government, dealing with Stalin for several years, were so naive as to think that the so called "Polish government totally subservient to USSR, would sent it’s contingents, to join their compatriots in England."

2c)It follows from what is said in the Times and in numerous other sources (let me know if you want some of such) that the western command pilots refused their invitations because "they do not wish to march unless Polish soldiers and sailors of the Western Command can march with them". Varsovian (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• 1.Varsovian is portaying a completely biased picture-they were no "Polish Axis forces" or "Forces loyal to German govt"-they were a number Poles forcefully conscripted to German Wehrmacht in Upper Silesia, often under the threat of prison or torture. Obviously they can't be named as "Polish Axis forces".
• 2.TRJN was run by communists. The non-communist membets were imprisoned or had to flee Poland in fear of their lives-such as Mikolajczyk who escaped hidden in a cargo ship to USA.
• 3.Giving percentages for number of involved is completely unnecessary.
• 4.Polish forces were in effect not included.
• 5. Unless there is a source that compares it and claims so this would violate OR and SYNTHESIS policies.

Just a clear up of Varsovian claims-while I can edit the article, I have other matters to attend to right now and I neither want to engage in editing of this article right now. so far your edits seem to be balanced FPS.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks to you both for the feedback and info. I'll see what tweaks I can make to the text some time later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

[22] If you read this link provided by Varsovian you will see that this was in larger context of post-war Labour government not wanting to offend the Soviet Union and cutting of ties to Western Poles, as well as bit of unease with Katyn Massacre. The text describes other incidents like this one.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the link does indeed cover more than just the parade, much more. I linked to it only to answer the specific questions of Future Perfect. Varsovian (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Slow edit-war help needed

Would you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Borealis55 ? He appears every 2 weeks or so to make the same tendentious rv, without any discussion. He used one discussion page once finally, to insult me in Russian.--Galassi (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

issues

As you blocked obvious single purpose account Covermepleasemon (talk · contribs), another reincarnation emerged with identical purpose MajorSuiteInParadisetoja (talk · contribs) [23] [24][25][26]. Plz keep an eye on it. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Appeal

I would like to appeal to your Arb Requesr Reinforcement decision [27]. I have seen your reply to Olive [28]. I assume that you meant that you did not intend to discuss any appeal from her to your decision. I hope my case is different. If it is, could you please explain how I should proceed. I have no argument except that I do not understand why. If you could explain a little bit the understanding what's going that you have in my case, I might be able to bring some new elements. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)