User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
– July 2006 – October 2006 – November 2006 – January 2007 – 12 March 2007

Contents 1 Welcome back 2 Superfluous? 3 Rex Germanus 4 Vandalism? I don't think so. 5 Your esteemed name 6 Shame on you 7 Nationalist material on Wikipedia 8 slap with the wikitrout 9 Darwinek 10 Rfc 11 Page protection 12 Request for Arbitration 13 RfARB 14 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek 15 Anon edits on Greek ethnic groups 16 Help Resolving a conflict 17 Deletion of Image:VBelmont.png 18 hey, thanks... 19 Who is it? 20 Move Balkan linguistic union 21 Old Europe 22 Amfipol 23 Dutch (ethnic group) 24 Hi 25 What are you doing? 26 Hi 27 WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VII (III) - March 2007 28 NisarKand back again 29 Dutch declension 30 But seriously... 31 What's wrong with the image? 32 User & User Talk Pages 33 Re: image closures 34 Thanks 35 Images 36 Fools Day 37 WP:CEM 38 User:Balkantropolis 39 Dutch Declension System 40 Your recent reversions 41 Adem Somyurek/Somyürek 42 Just a note 43 Thank you 44 Thanks for the remainder 45 Apologies 46 Maps! 47 Info 48 RfA thanks from Akhilleus 49 Please check your mail 50 User:Mattheads disruption of my work and reversions based on nothing but a personal grudge.

[edit] Welcome back

It's nice to see you're back from your holiday :-) --Domitius 23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superfluous?

I'm a bit confused/curious... Why are the entries you removed from Germanic superfluous? My understanding of disambiguation pages says that those types of entries are exactly what should be listed -- those pages are very closely related to the ones left behind, they include the disambiguated word as a key part of the article's title, and (not necessarily a good reason, but even so) similar things are listed on other disambig pages, as well as pages which are far less related to the given disambig word than the Germanic ones. Germanic could very easily mean the culture/history, and that's what those links were about, which is a good part of why I'm quite so confused. -Bbik 04:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:DAB, "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong". For instance, the term "Germanic", on its own, could never be confused with "Germanic Wars". You don't say "Germanic" when you mean "Germanic Wars". Likewise, you wouldn't type "Germanic" in the search box when you are looking for "Germanic Wars"; you'd go to "Germanic Wars" directly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rex Germanus

For the record, I asked User:Sandstein to intervene when a new spate of edits followed block expiry. He specified a procedure, which I followed, but that only led to a counter-complaint by a third party. I feel that the responsibilty for enforcement of Arbitration decisions lies with the administrators, and that users should not be exposed to retaliatory action, if they do complain about apparent violations. I have asked Sandstein to exclude third parties.Paul111 12:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you imposed a block while I was writing that. As for your comments. I don't see any alternative to reverts of the disputed reverts, since all the issues have been discussed for months at the articles talk page, without consensus.Paul111 12:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism? I don't think so.

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise,

I am the user, who registerd just so, because you accused me of vandalism. My acts - editing a pages, which were full of lies. Both historically, linguistically and just plain realistically.

I edited the pages, concerning the so called "Macedonian language", the "Mecadonian" cities of Ohrid, Kumanovo and several other pages as a guest, correcting many, but not all inaccuracies in them.

Now, I know that many people in the world support the thesis of the Macedonian nation. That dispute is quite old, yet this is a case, in which there is only one real situation - there are no Macedonians in Macedonia. Those people were forced with horrific measures by the Royal Serbian and Jugoslavian state to deny their Bulgarian personality and become a new nation.

Currently, the government in my country (Bulgaria) supports this thesis of Macedonians, Macedonian language and Macedonian state. But I am a free citizen of the European Union. I demand my opinion to be respected. My acts are not vandalism and I stand by them.

I expect an appology and at least the option for another opinion to exist into those pages. The people, that constantly monitor them are not the only ones with an opinion and they do not have the right to broadcast their propaganda in such a way.

Have a nice day.

Geori "El D34dlyto" Draganov Freedom Studios.net PR Student in the NGDEK Classical Gymnasium, Sofia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El D34dlyto (talk • contribs) 16:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Your esteemed name

May I congratulate you on your name? I usually take a minute from editing to praise editors with absurd, rotund, extreme, elegant or fanciful names. Yours has a magical and elegaic quality, reminiscent of jazz records, past experiences with interesting animals in the countryside and a subtle tilt at post-modernism. Well done! MarkThomas 23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shame on you

Feel very ashamed of what you're doing to that Rex G guy. You are an admin unworthy, on the Dutch wikipedia you'd be removed as one thats for sure.213.125.116.112 11:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalist material on Wikipedia

Articles on individual nations, peoples, and countries, and the country history articles, attract nationalist propagandists. They insert pseudohistory and nationalist claims - see Malësi e Madhe District for an example - usually without any source. There is usually no reliable source, since historians and other specialists are sceptical of such claims. The best thing to do in such cases is to put your foot down: don't seek consensus, and certainly don't "assume good faith", aggressively remove unsourced claims, and aggressively revert their re-insertion. That leads to edit wars, and to heated comments on the talk page, and in turn that frightens off other editors. It is obstructive editing, deliberately so. Nevertheless, it usually works, and the propagandists give up in the end.

In the case of Dutch (people) it didn't work, and when it is pointless, then the option is to simply abandon the article, and leave it online in its propagandistic version. Wikipedia is not my website, and I don't suffer if the articles are wrong or slanted. It is a choice for Wikipedia itself, whether it is primarily an online forum (of a special type), or primarily an encyclopedia. In practice it is more of a forum, and while it works for collaborative non-controversial articles, it fails as an encyclopedia for controversial subjects.

If there is an arbitration on this issue, it would give the committee a chance to think these things over. I think they ought to back the encyclopedia aspect, and therefore abandon consensus editing, and with it such things as good-faith assumptions. They ought to back "deletionist obstructive editing" of propagandistic material. That would improve the quality of content, but it would be the end of much Wikipedia tradition, so it is unlikely.Paul111 11:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] slap with the wikitrout

What does it mean please ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:TROUT. A trout is a variant of a cluebat, used to gently adjust the clue level of someone who isn't getting it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, thanks, but I don't see the point :( ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... :-) Well, it's just a humorous way of saying someone needs a "slap" (metaphorical, of course) because they are being dense or otherwise off the track. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh I see now :-D Thanks. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darwinek

Would you look at Darwinek's block of User:Ross.Hedvicek? It looks like Ross and Darwinek were mixing it up at AfD including this gem [1] and the only 3RR violation I can find in Ross's contribs in the removal of an NPA warning from his own talk page. Do you agree (rather a hasty look, I'm late for work). Also you may wish to review User:Thatcher131/temp. Thatcher131 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also his block of User talk:Tulkolahten [2] although in that case he did apologize (but seemingly for miscounting reverts, not for blocking when he was involved). Thatcher131 14:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind this edit [3] where Ross Hedvicek personally attacks contributor to the Ivan Spacek's deletion discussion, he was very uncivil. Vaguely translated "are you all fucked" ?

My block by Darwinek was between us, I please demand this block not to be reviewed or used against him in any way.

≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If Ross and Darwinek were being uncivil to each other, all the more reason to have the block placed by an uninvolved admin. And I have never before seen an admin block a user over removal of warnings from the user's own talk page. There is broad consensus that we don't do that. Thatcher131 14:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc

What exactly means Rfc, not the shortage, but the meaning of the process. Is that between admins now ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, everybody is free to comment. If you want to do that, it's strongly recommended to stick to the specific format of comments: you either open a section of your own ("==Outside view by Tulkolahten=="), or you just sign somebody else's comment where it says "users who endorse this summary"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

Why is my request at [4] to protect Pilsener due to the eidt warring still omitted ? Not accepted not declined, it stays there whole day. Can you please check it ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Those admin pages easily get backlogged once in a while. That said, I don't really see a pressing need for protection in this case, there's plenty of room for you guys to tinker constructively with the article to find suitable compromises, as long as you don't resort to blind sterile revert-warring. I'll leave the request open for other admins to check, though. By the way, did the "Bürger-Brauerei" ever officially use a Czech name back in the 19th century? These would be the kinds of things that ought to be determined by citing sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I wanted to discuss it and I requested sources. But they still don't want to discuss and Matthead's entry is arrogant [5]. I don't want edit warring so I wanted to calmly discuss - but no response. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

Thank you for commenting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darwinek 2‎. Even though this dispute is only a few hours old, I feel his responses, both on the RFC page and on the talk page, demonstrate that he lacks the judgement needed to be an administrator, at least regarding topics related to Czech nationalism and ethnicity. I have filed a request for arbitration; you may wish to comment there. Thatcher131 20:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Give that guy some peace Thatcher131, let him calm down, summarize what he wants to say. You are handling with him like with the worst vandal ever, he did not break Wikipedia. He deserves little more patience. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfARB

I see this [6] may I put my statement on this or it is just for RFC? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anon edits on Greek ethnic groups

You might want to take a look at Special:Contributions/85.73.64.144. Some of the changes make sense, others I am not sure. See what you think. --Macrakis 23:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I was already on the case, see my comment on Talk:Arvanites. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help Resolving a conflict

I have read the pages about this on wikipedia and I have came to you because you seem to be a person who knows how wikipedia is supposed to work and are most likely 100% neutral on this matter. I am involved in a rather intense edit war with two other editors of the article Miriam Rivera. In the last days the user User:Jokestress has quite reasonably asked for the article to be backed up with more reliable sources. Well I found them and that seems to have placated her. She has acted in 100% reasonable way in all of this. The problem arises in that she has asked in the spirt of resolving the conflict we were having other people who are not 100% neutral it seems to comment on the matter. These being the user User:Longhair and the userUser:Alison in particular who have not bothered to justify anything that they have done. Longhiar being an admin seems to feel no need to discuss anything and I feel is abusing her powers. Is there anything you can do? --Hfarmer 03:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Image:VBelmont.png

I don't know if you read the image discription, but I personally asked Veronica Belmont if she would allow an image of herself on wikipedia, and which one if so... She told me to upload that one... and I did. You had no right to delete the picture, especially without warning the uploader (so that perhaps he could tell you that you were wrong in doing so)...

--Alegoo92 02:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The description page said: "Taken with explicit permission from Belmont's profile at: http://www.last.fm/user/earlysound/. Due to terms of permission, this image is only for use in the article Veronica Belmont. Licensing: {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}" - Please read our image policies at Wikipedia:Copyright. In order to be a "free" encyclopedia, we can only host image content that is truly free for all to use. That means we can't use licenses that restrict the image use to a single article. If Belmont wants her image on Wikipedia, she needs to release it under a license that allows anybody to reuse it anywhere, inside and outside Wikipedia. Also, you did the wrong thing by then adding the cc-by-sa tag, because it contradicts the license you described - if it's "only for use in the article", it isn't cc-by-sa. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hey, thanks...

for unblocking me. I promise to make good contributions from now on. I really appreciate your help.

[edit] Who is it?

[7]--Domitius 11:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Who cares. Try deleting it yourself once and you'll be on his next list. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, would you mind helping me keep an eye on this R9tgokunks (talk • contribs)? I don't know how to deal with him, he's not really a vandal but his edits are terrible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK u EVIL VANDAL :) --Domitius 11:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC

[edit] Move Balkan linguistic union

Could you please move Balkan linguistic union to Balkan sprachbund (note: two words in English) per the discussion at Talk:Balkan_linguistic_union#Balkansprachbund -- undisputed since 12 March. Thanks --Macrakis 16:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. I haven't got much time right now cleaning up the double redirects. Could you lend a hand? Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. By the way, will you be in Greece in August? --Macrakis 17:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, don't know yet. I'll certainly go for a visit some time later this year, but not sure when. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Europe

I don't think he knows what he is doing, just at least Israel is not in Europe. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 07:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, könnst-du mir mit diesem benutzer bitte helfen.--Domitius 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think you could also do something about the persistent anon(s) at Balkans. They keep removing the highly sourced fact that Croatia is a Balkan country and place it in the "sometimes Balkan" category. The problem is that's unsourced, all sources consider Croatia a Balkan country. Check the page history, if all these anons were a logged in user, he would have been blocked for violating the 3RR by now.--Domitius 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amfipol

Hi, I added a paragragraph in the article about the Greek city Amfipoli. Could you look at and maybe it edit? It's the last paragraph. Here's the link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amfipoli Thanks! Neptunekh Neptunekh 17:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch (ethnic group)

It is not self-evident that there should be an article on this subject at all: what you mean is that a Dutch people exist. That is not however a reason to treat them as an ethnic group, a little-used designation. The limitation to ethnic group was made simply to facilitate the irredentist/nationalist content in the current version. I don't see why that version should not go up for deletion, with the current title and content, but the decision has been made to let the propaganda stand, and as I indicated already, there is no point in further procedures. I don't suffer any harm because a Wikipedia article is wrong, and I have no personal interest in ensuring Wikipedia quality or accuracy - unless an article affects me directly, and 99.9% never would. Wikipedia has to decide whether it is about content or about consensus, and as you no doubt have seen Citizendium goes to the other extreme and insists on specialist knowledge to write initial versions. I doubt if that will work either, but content clearly has a low priority at Wikipedia.Paul111 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Thank you for your comment. Best wishes. E104421 14:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What are you doing?

Why are you deleting my own images and images of my friends?

I may not be normal, but you're definitely more problematic 151.44.158.152 22:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

One last time. You are banned. Not just blocked by me, banned by the community. Wikipedia is no longer interested in your opinion on what images to use.

I would have loved to see those images in Wikipedia, personally. But we need the proper license. Those photographers need to state the license, themselves. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=212521

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/sh/?txt=istanbul%3Adominican

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=376528

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=369160

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=460075

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=460077

151.44.158.152 23:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Can you please take a look at TRNC. I believe an EU report on languages is being mispreresnted as an official EU census on the Turkish Cypriot population. Please see the talk, thanks, --A.Garnet 14:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VII (III) - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 15:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NisarKand back again

Hello dear FP, he is back again with another one of his dozens of sock puppets. This is really annoying. Please try to ban this one too. Aero_stud24. Thanks. --Behnam 17:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhhghgh. It's a relatively old account, from long before he was banned. Have we got any concrete evidence that it's him, other than that he's pushing a Pashto POV? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We could check his IP address. Or just take a look at his edits. They are the exact same edits that he and his other sockpuppets made [8]. Behnam 22:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch declension

comment mistakenly placed on user page, moved here

Hi, Actually no the edits are meant to reflect the Dutch declension system as it stands today in Standard Modern Dutch. I have been discussing for a week that Dutch declension is archaic and that the facts of that article are disputed. But people keep referring back to grammar articles at nl.wikipedia.org as authoritative and saying that the "Archaic" part should be deleted and this article should just stand as "Dutch declension system", as if it were a system in use today. Even though the grammar articles at nl.wikipedia.org are just as misleading as far as Standard Modern dutch is concerned. I have been doing two things with this article

1) Change the meta-commentary so that it reflects the fact that the Dutch declension system here described is not the one in use in standard modern dutch and highlight that the system here described was an arbitrary and invented system which was never productively used by Dutch people, and that Dutch people do not and have not since the 1600s "felt" case (like say Czechs or Russians or Germans do). 2) To the extent that this was an arbitrary and invented system, but did exist and was enforced from circa 1860-1935, make some corrections as to errata and certain references to Flemish usage (which is not standard Dutch and shouldn't be here as an alternative). However, there are many charts and I think I have probably missed a few errors. The constant references to Flemish usage of indefinite article "ene" particularly worries me as this is simply a variant and has absolutely nothing to do with Dutch declension, imagined or real.

In short, I think this whole article is and was very misleading.

Duprie37 19:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW I'm referring to he page Dutch declension system

which now has been changed to Archaic Dutch declension as I agree it should be Duprie37 19:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be two similar pages, both of which I have been editing.

As for my sources, I am a native Dutch speaker with a degree in Linguistics majoring in the History of Germanic Grammars from The University of Melbourne in Australia

Duprie37 19:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As to "universally loathed"...I don't know...it is hard to describe being forced to learn and write in a case system which has nothing to do with the way you speak. To have to constantly look up words for their gender in dictionaries just to write a letter "correctly" to someone. I'm too young myself to know really, it was gone when I went to Dutch schools, but my parents still tell horror tales about it. I agree the language may be too polemic, but it's also true. Dutch speakers absolutely loathe the memory of the enforced case system. besides, there is also the strong association with the formerly hated language German. But feel free to change my words if you think that would be better. I don't mind.

In any case, I'm sure some "grammar expert" will come along tomorrow and revert it all back to the way it was last night. Duprie37 19:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but this has been going on for ages, since like late last year I realised something went wrong, I asked Rex Germanus to rewrite some of the pages relating to grammar, which some unknown users with almost the same ip, Bombshell, Govert Mierveld and another user keep reverting it to the old way (I doubt they come from one or two people). All the days I hope it gains attention to other contributors or mods and seems like the day has come, thanks a lot. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 02:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] But seriously...

Is there any way I can exclude myself from Hagermanbot's annoying messages? Perhaps a tag of some sort to put on my page? I am well aware of the need for signatures at this point so the warnings are simply annoyances. The Behnam 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Now I won't be pushed into a personal attack against the, uh, non-person. 141.213.211.172 19:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's wrong with the image?

You deleted the following images from a couple of entries including Florida International University and Florida International University School of Architecture pages. Why? I don't see how they are wrong. Please explain. Image:Fiu soa.jpg Image:Fiu stad2.jpg

[edit] User & User Talk Pages

Sorry for accidentally vandalising your User page! It appears I wasn't paying attention.

Duprie37 01:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: image closures

Regarding the message you left on my talk page, that's a lot if information to digest all at once. It will not be possible for me to review the individual cases and study what decision I made and try to learn from the situation, as you have deleted the images. I wonder what the hurry was to delete them instead of discussing it first? If the only lesson you wanted me to learn was don't close image deletion debates at all, then that's simple... but if you wanted me to become more familiar with the procedures, then this will require more discussion. I am quite certain that the law says "a 2-dimensional representation (either rawing or photograph) of a 3-dimensional work on public display may be made and distributed without consulting the copyright holder without violating the rights of the copyright holder." The 3-dimensional work itself is copyrighted. In other words, the architect who designed the staduim would have legal protection against somebody building another stadium, but not against people making drawings and photographs of it. In addition, the law states that such 2-dimensional works are not subject to copyright, and therefore are inherantly public domain. This means that even though the architect who designed the statium can not sue me for making a drawing of his stadium, I can not claim copyright rights on such a drawing.

As for the rest, as I said I can not review the details because you deleted them. But my recollection of the ship Bodacea, was that the uploader claimed it was created by a US Government employee, and that he got it from the National archive office, where he worked? That seems like it would be fine, as well. If you are saying he has to provide some additional proof that his 60-year old photograph was really created by a US government employee, then that sounds a bit more like copyright paranoia than anything else. Perhaps you are a deletionist and don't like non-admins closing these discussions? If that is the case, then please just say so, and we can all save alot of time. If not... then please provide a copy of the image page records for the images you deleted which I closed, and put it in my user space so I can review them. Thanks, Jerry 10:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the "haste" is just because - well, we get so many questionable fair use images, I'm just finding I can't keep up if I don't assume "shoot first, ask questions later". (see my little essay at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Fair use. As for the cases you question, let me see: as for the 2D/3D thing, I have the feeling you are mixing two things up: (1) A work of architecture in public view (in the US) can indeed be freely photographed without infringing on the copyright of the architect - but then the photographer has a copyright on the image; (2) the case referred to in {{pd-art}} states that when photographing a 2D work of art, the photographer may not establish copyright of their own, so the copyright on the photograph remains that of the creator of the original work of art. These two cases don't go together, and in neither case does the resulting photograph automatically become free for third parties. As for the Bodacea image, the uploader stated it was from a British, not US government source; unlike the Americans, the Brits do retain copyright on such images.

As for the process, I certainly don't mind non-admins helping to watch image usage, but I'd recommend to be more cautious with making edits that have the appearance of binding decisions as long as you're not absolutely certain you understand the policies well enough. Am I a deletionist? Well, I'm not of the fanatic anti-fair-use crowd, but I do believe "fair use" is a widely abused notion on WP; my estimate is that about 80% of our alleged fair-use images really aren't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. My involvement stemmed from the new autotagging policy which seems to have been implemented sometime in late January. The system seems to have created quite a backlog. The initial templates stated the deletion review would be concluded in 4 days... when they reached the 40-day point, I realized that the issue needed more attention. I initially consulted an admin about it and asked if it would be appropriate for me to close images that met the following conditions:

• Nobody expressed agreement that the image should be deleted (in other words the only delete !vote was the system autotag).
• The user did express some plausible fair use criteria, or one was readily apparent to me
• all of the fair use criteria of WP:FUC were met, including:
  • No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.
  • The image is not used in any manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
  • The amount of copyrighted work used is as little as possible. (ie: A low-resolution image has been used instead of a high-resolution image, and or the image is cropped.)
  • The image has previously been published and this is clearly stated on the image page.
  • The image is encyclopedic and otherwise meets general Wikipedia content requirements.
  • The image meets the media-specific policy requirements.
  • The image is used in at least one article.
  • The image contributes significantly to the article(s) in which it is used
  • It is not used in a manner as to serve a purely decorative purpose.
• The image description contains:
  • Proper attribution of the source of the material/ copyright holder.
  • An appropriate fair use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed.
  • A list of articles in which fair use of the image is asserted.

I was told it would be okay for me to do so, as long as I used the correct templates, edit summaries, and made sure due diligence was followed to ensure all of the requirements are met.

I look at the image page, its talk page, the article(s) page(s) and its(their) associated talk pages(s) and only close those discussions that had no editors express concern, and obviously met the WP:FUC, in my judgement.

I can see that from what you are saying that I confused the US Government and UK Government laws; and that the drawing of the stadium does not count as a 2-d reproduction of a 3-d sculpture. These laws are rather esoteric, so it takes some experience with the various facets to learn these things, I guess.

I think that it would just be more helpful to have a discussion with an editor making a good faith effort to clear the backlog, rather than to hastily revert his efforts, and tell him to be go learn the policies. I really did try to learn the policies, you know, and there are plenty of examples of others who have closed using the 2D/3D argument, which is where I learned it.

So where should we go from here? Should I just back off and leave this to the experts, or should I continue to be bold and help clear the backlog? Jerry 15:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, point taken, and sorry if I sounded condescending. I guess the main point where our judgments differed was that thing about "contributing significantly" to the content of the article. I tend to interpret that far more strictly, in light of how I understand what's said at Fair use (the WP article, not the project page), and on this page: [9]. Recommended read. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and patience. I do appreciate the feedback. By the way, I look forward to someday being an admin, so your feedback, particularly on my participation in pseudo-adminish things is very helpful. Please do continue to give advice if you see I need it in the future. Thanks, Jerry 22:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the welcome note! I hope to make a good contribution. Out of interest, are you an administrator here? Or just a very active user? Balkantropolis 13:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Seriously, those are correct copyrights for those images, what's wrong. The ones you deleted of buildings ARE of buildings and that's what the copyright says, I don't understand why you think that's incorrect. That's so ridiculous.

I still don't see how they're wrong but okay. So, how do you put them back on? Do you have to contact the people on the website or just change the copyright? The images are not offensive and they're only beneficial to the page.

[edit] Fools Day

I was patrolling recent changes and it was the user name that caught my eye - first it seemed ok but it got really weird after a while, especially when I saw his user page and all the other pages that he created. Moreover, I actually wondered if it was me who had it all wrong. At one point it was scary, he was creating articles faster than I could add them to the AfD! Btw, there is still this: Columbia Pictures (film). I have been trying to clean up some of the modifications that he did to other articles. Thanks for getting on the case so fast though. Cheers! Baristarim 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CEM

One of the trainees jumped the gun on this request. I'll look into this. Durova^Charge! 23:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CEM, what pray is that? Looks like another stalling device... you have my blessings, hopefully, in contrast to RFCs and voluntary mediation, this scheme will actually work :) --Domitius 12:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW FP, could you do something about Pulvis angelus's latest sock. Details are here. Thanks.--Domitius 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again my questions are unanswered. What slurring and ethnic insults do you mean? Balkantropolis 16:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Balkantropolis

Good work! Rklawton 17:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch Declension System

I'm sorry if I deleted some of your (correct) changes to Dutch Declensio System. Please apply them again. Due to repetitive vandalism, reverting and moving of user:Rex Germanus I had to restore the page to an earlier state. Govert Miereveld 22:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you allready had a note about user:Rex Germanus.

Hope I apllied all of your changes.

Govert Miereveld 22:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent reversions

I noticed you have been combing through my contributions lately. Is there something I should be concerned about? —M (talk • contribs) 02:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your continued folloing of my edits is becoming disturbing. Please stop. —M (talk • contribs) 14:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adem Somyurek/Somyürek

I noticed that a fork you reverted has been re-reverted (about 5 weeks ago!) I don't want to wander into the situation uninvited, so I thought I'd give you a heads-up. Cheers! -- Js farrar 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note

Do you know who this user is User:ReinesLicht? I suspect (obviously I could be wrong) that he could be a sock of some sorts.. The editing pattern and the articles concerned resembles someone, again, in my opinion. Baristarim 01:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I was indeed just trying to add a few lines to a stub. Thanks again for being fair.cs 14:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Cs did not file a 3RR report as you incorrectly told El C. Please refrain from saying this again as this is not true. KazakhPol 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, right, Cs filed some earlier request, right? Anyway, somehow you managed to call Dmc's wrath upon you, doesn't much matter how, does it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the remainder

I think I just need to give a wikibreak. I am sure someone will take up where I left. thanks.cs 17:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

No, I wasn't aware of the behaviour. For various reasons, it actually shouldn't have surprised me - I apologise for not looking further into it. I cleared out about 100 speedies last night. Now that I am aware, I have undone my own deletion of the tennis ball one and removed the speedy tag from it Orderinchaos 00:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Argh - just noticed they *had* been undeleted - I usually do check that. I will be more careful next time. Orderinchaos 00:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maps!

Hi! Any new poems?! My anthology is still very poor, and it needs quality stuff!

Now, do you remember the instructions about maps you had given me. Well, I think we should re-start from scratch! Listen what is my problem. I am workin on Battle of Greece; the main map there is taken from a site, where I could find no specific information about its copyright status, if it is free its commercial use etc. Anyway, I went to the French article, and I found there a French version of the map above (Image:Battle of Greece WWII map-fr.png) created by a Wikipédian, and two more excellent maps:

• Image:Bataille de Grèce09avril1941.PNG
• Image:BatailledeGrèce15041941.JPG.

If these maps were to be added to the article, they would help it become of very high quality, and would also make my copyright worries disappear! How could I translate them to English? Could you help?

Oh! Καλό Πάσχα!--Yannismarou 14:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info

Just a question, what do you think about this? Baristarim 13:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I remember Xebat and it's certainly not D.Kurdistani.--Domitius 15:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

How possible? Your oldest edit; Feb.5.2007, Xebat's latest edit; April 3 2006. Do you have another relation?Must.^{T C} 15:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

FP knows ;-) --Domitius 16:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not enough.Wiki is not a funclub.If you have an allege, and there are some suspicions about your allege, you must bring evidences/replies, othervise take your allege back.Must.^{T C} 16:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one making the allegations around here.--Domitius 17:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Domitius is not a sock of anyone, he just keeps on changing his user name.. :) Baristarim 17:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, FPaS, I filed a checkuser for that case, but I would like to hear your opinion all the same if you have an idea.. cheers! Baristarim 17:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

FPaS, Domitius created this article Kurdish Genocide in Turkey one minute after he hit 3RR in reverts at the main dab page. Can you please do something about this disruption? How many times is this Dirak/Dom whatever going to disrupt Wikipedia? Not to mention all those articles he created during the debate at Ottoman WWI casualties.. Baristarim 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly disruption. The AFD has no result to delete, there is no consensus to delete. Just fulfilling the admins recommendations to help readers find what they are looking for.--Domitius 20:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Your creation of a new article one minute after you have reached 3RR and your removal of the speedy tag when it is expressly banned is.. FPaS, can you please do something about this? What has this user contributed to Wikipedia except disrupt and revert? Baristarim 20:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is it banned? Point it to me because I may have missed it.--Domitius 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It clearly says on the speedy template that: "do not remove it from pages that you have created yourself" :) Baristarim 20:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise, thanks for your support in my successful RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, and I've got those hydrokinetic bounthekphoretic tools from you, so I'll have this place cleaned up in no time. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please check your mail

Hi, it looks like you're editing now. I sent you a rather urgent e-mail many hours ago, so could you check your mail, please? Regards, Bishonen | talk 23:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

I guess you'd just stopped editing... I've posted my concern over your 3-day 3RR block here on WP:ANI, as Justanother has been waiting an unconscionable time to have his unblock request reviewed. I suppose he's a victim of the holidays. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 01:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] User:Mattheads disruption of my work and reversions based on nothing but a personal grudge.

Recently,

• I moved Holländer → Hollander, for the simple reason that on the disambiguation page, "Hollander" was more dominant than both "Holländer and "Hollaender" combined. Nevertheless, and without any explanation Matthead reverts.

• I moved Pommersch → Pomeranian (German dialect), for the simple reason that it is the English term. Nevertheless, and without any explanation Matthead reverts.

• I moved Last battle of the battleship Bismarck → The sinking of the Bismarck, because its more appealing and less long. Nevertheless Matthead reverts.

As an explanation he leaves a personal attack on my talk page. (here)

He also removed dozens of ^{[citation needed]}-tags on the Ethnic German article and removed ^{[citation needed]}-tags I added to Swiss Germans. In both edit summaries he mentions my name.

This cannot be a coincidence. He watches my edits and then reverts without any summary them hoping to annoy me. This is just terrorising people and causing them a lot more work. Do something about this.Rex 11:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)