Misplaced Pages

User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:30, 10 September 2010 view sourceSf5xeplus (talk | contribs)7,696 edits Kymi etc← Previous edit Revision as of 10:49, 10 September 2010 view source TimidGuy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,259 edits Please reconsider the sanctions against me: new sectionNext edit →
Line 100: Line 100:
::Yes, after a bit it started to make sense.] (]) 00:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC) ::Yes, after a bit it started to make sense.] (]) 00:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
::I'm not sure if the inter-disambigation link I added is neccessary.] (]) 00:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC) ::I'm not sure if the inter-disambigation link I added is neccessary.] (]) 00:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

== Please reconsider the sanctions against me ==

Regarding the sanctions you issued at WP:AE, I'd like to ask you to reconsider them. As drafting arbiter Roger Davies pointed out after the matter had been closed<http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=378430770&oldid=378427991>, the TM arbcom specifies that the steps for a sanction must include a warning and that didn't appear to have been followed in this case. And in subsequent discussion he further says that the warning be specific to the alleged misbehavior<http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=378483117&oldid=378478191>. In addition, it was procedurally odd to issue a ban without providing any diffs or links that evince the alleged misbehavior. Thank you. ] (]) 10:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:49, 10 September 2010

Archive
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 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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

Reinsertion of the section

Hi, Future.
I had no intention to take your precious time, but since the other user that engaged in editing of article Battle of Pakrac has left Misplaced Pages.
I've wanted to ask ChrisO about this, but he left Misplaced Pages. His talkpage is locked and "Bye, bye.". Who remained? You.
I wanted to restore part (as much as possible, I don't push for all) of the article that was "lost" in ChrisO's rewriting.... Without deleting ChrisO's text. There's place for all of us on this world.
I believe that these sections aren't problematical. One'll say that more "political neutral" terminology should be used - I believe that it's easy to reach an agreement about that.
Basically, I won't touch ChrisO's "solutions". Although, I find strange that his sources multiply Croatian success, e.g., they show no wounded on Croatian side, and 5 times more (158 persons more) captured rebels (!!!??).
You can see my messages at the bottom of the talkpage. (I agree with the term "clash"), (I disagree with you, but I understand you), (remarks about belittleing of small nations' sources, compared to Western, and explanation why Cro. sources are necessary ),
About the grammar: I'll ask user Thparkth and some other users to correct the grammar errors, if necessary.
I'm telling you this, since I don't want to seem as some edit warrior in your eyes. I don't want to read messages like "don't push your POV, this is the final warning" and to "gain" the title of edit-warrior.
The article is nobody's ownership. Everybody can edit it. Including me.
If my previous edits look too sharp, it's not the problem to "smoothen them" (ChrisO already changed non-neutral words, so that's already solved), so they can fit into the text, without breaking any wiki.rules. I believe that even the other side won't disagree with the text.
BTW, I've found another Croatian source, from the very involved person (Josip Boljkovac!), whose book gives some information that give brighter light about some person(s) from the local Serb community. Bye, Kubura (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So, what do you wish to reinsert? It's not clear to me from what you write above. Fut.Perf. 06:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Harassment on my Talk Page

Please take a look at the harassment on my talk page by User:Viriditas. I am asking for action due to your being involved in the SPI in question and know that we were cleared. I would hope that you can warn him off this subject, and if that fails, block him for harassment. I am copying this message to several other admins on the Admins that make difficult blocks list - the ones that are familiar with the SPI and the situation. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check your mail

Hi I sent you an e-mail three days ago, would you mind checking your inbox? Thanks, Footyfanatic3000 16:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Another sock

These is an obvious similarity between this ] and this ] account. Alexikoua (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Image Help?

Hi you recently unblocked me, i followed the procedures from a website and uploaded an image, http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Baggage_belt_view_Cork_Airport.jpg could you take a look at the copyright and make sure ive followed procedures. The website says it is allowed to be used e.g. printed, copied etc... but not to be edited. Thanks again, Kavs8 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for asking. I'm afraid no, this will not work. The license expressed in the copyright statement allows only personal use (e.g. on your own computer), but not re-publishing. What we need is a license that allows re-use for any purpose (i.e. re-publishing, any use inclusing commercial use, modifications and so on). You therefore rightly chose a copyright tag that marks it as "non-free", but we can't use a non-free image here because (among other things) it could easily be replaced by a truly free (self-made) one. Fut.Perf. 13:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks how does it get deleted? as i dont want to return to the rocky road if you get me. Kavs8 (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No prob, I've deleted it for you. In such cases one could also request deletion with the "db-author" tag. Fut.Perf. 14:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Kavs8 (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Saguamundi

Hi there, I see you blocked User:Saguamundi yesterday for sockpuppetry. I encountered the user on the article on Alanya, a town in southern Turkey, changing the term "Anatolian" to "Turkish" and "Turkoman". The user "fixed" the edits of an anonymous IP, which was making similar edits at the same time. So I suspect that 81.214.149.148 and 85.104.28.52, both of which are from Ankara, are probably just this same user you blocked yesterday. So I was just going to let you know.-- Patrick, oѺ 19:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Kymi etc

I wasn't really thinking about primary usage.. Just trying to tidy up the disambig links - I've since noticed that there are:

all of which contain amongst other things, links to the three places. I think a few of these should be redirects, but the MOS for greek transliteration etc is something I know nothing about. It seems like there should be a better way to do this? Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I created several of these right now. The disambig system around these Greek cities was an absolute mess, because each of the cities has been at a different spelling, and there was hardly any systematic disambig system linking them. The issue is that all five name forms overlap on these three cities, but each of them (except Cumae) also has other unrelated uses specific to each spelling. I don't think the duplication of the dab pages is much of a problem though. Fut.Perf. 22:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, after a bit it started to make sense.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the inter-disambigation link I added is neccessary.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider the sanctions against me

Regarding the sanctions you issued at WP:AE, I'd like to ask you to reconsider them. As drafting arbiter Roger Davies pointed out after the matter had been closed<http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=378430770&oldid=378427991>, the TM arbcom specifies that the steps for a sanction must include a warning and that didn't appear to have been followed in this case. And in subsequent discussion he further says that the warning be specific to the alleged misbehavior<http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=378483117&oldid=378478191>. In addition, it was procedurally odd to issue a ban without providing any diffs or links that evince the alleged misbehavior. Thank you. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise: Difference between revisions Add topic