User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Archives
– July 2006 – October 2006 – November 2006 – January 2007 – 12 March 2007 – 5 May 2007 – 8 Sept 2007 – Dec 2007 – Feb 2008 – March 2008 – 12 May 2008 – 20 July 2008 – – –

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

Greece and Epirus, Kosovo Vandalism

I had written some real facts about Greece, Epirus and Kosovo.

Greece facts proven by BBC and CNN reports. Epirus facts true from many years, reported by historian and discovered in a research in 2005. Kosovo is INCORRECTLY spelled, since It's populated with Albanians, it IS THE RIGHT OF ALBANIANS TO NAME IT, and it's real name is KosovA!

I'm very dissappointed with your service, you are unable to verify real facts and just remove what you think not true, I want to contribute but in this circumstances it is IMPOSSIBLE!

AND THIS http://my.telegraph.co.uk/f_off_telegraph_censors/may_2008/country_list_of_most_homosexuals_born_live.htm IS A SERIOUS TELEGRAPH! HOW THE HELL YOU KNOW THAT IT ISN'T? GO GET A LIFE, MAN!

Criticism

I am really having problem with vandals and your criticism. see this Rjecina

Dodona apology

Dodona is back , in fact i have been around , i came to apologias specially to you because i feel guilty somehow truly , we had a Besa and i broke it because i though you were just misleading me ( and you were somehow..) . I truly i am no matter if decide to release my account or not ...Any way i think also you had a role in my blocking.Could this situation change?? you need another hand to improve Arvanites without me the view would be mediocre

Arvanites page

Please see this [1]. My edit was reverted twice without a single argument. I do not want to start an edit war. Can you help me?

Ethnic composition of Albania

I have created this map, according the ethnic composition of Albania, as for 1989 census. I do not have photoshop right now, so I will make it better in about three hours. But, what do you think, is it a good idea?balkanian (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Having that kind of data represented in a map is definitely useful. The technical quality is of course not yet very satisfactory. And by the way, could you choose a different file name and get that one deleted? "Kkk" could be read as Ku Klux Klan, and it's always better to have something really descriptive, like "Albania ethnicities 1989 census" or something like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, yes ofcourse, there will be an other name.balkanian (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how did you make that one? Just make sure you are clean copyright-wise, by not using copyrighted maps as a basis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you see the final version?balkanian (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC) What do you think about the map, is it ok?balkanian (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Flags of the Republic of Macedonia

Hi Future, here is a problem again! Please, take a look. An unregistred user reverts the topic repetidly, without constructive discussion. Regards. Jingby (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit-war is going on without any arguments. Jingby (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You're uninvolved in this one, so can't you just protect it? BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 11:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'm bored. If these two guys don't learn to solve a minor issue like this constructively, I'm going to give them both enough rope to hang themselves another time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, sucks to be them. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 12:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the rope. I am shure, you are tired, me too. But you have to bring your administrator's cross. Please, read the talk page from this article and estimate the objectivity and the arguments of both sides, before to take your difficult and NEUTRAL descision. Thank you, again. Jingby (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And again;

According to Hugh Pulton in 1903 in Krushevo ...despite these promises the insurgents flew Bulgarian flags everywhere and in many places the uprising did entail attacks on Muslim Turks and Albanians... "Who Are the Macedonians?" - Page: 57, [2]

Regards. Jingby (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Future! I feel that I should have a say in this argument. He isn't fighting with one person, Jingiby is fighting with three people on this page. It's very annoying and time consuming since Jingiby and I already discussed this issue in the past, and now that he has a new argument he wants to see if it will work this time. I don't have the time to repeat myself over and over and over again, and seeing that Jingiby simply won't stop until he finds an argument that works, I won't keep wasting my time. I already now Jingiby's motives even if he does try to mask it Mactruth (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And now again. [3] [4]

Future, this people are talking only. They think this is nationalistic website and they can do what they want, whithout any scientifical background. This is inadmissibly.Jingby (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

At least have the decency to make accusations in proper English, Valentina. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 07:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's unfair. How many "Macedonian" editors contribute in "proper" English? Who aren't really Canadian or Australian like you, I mean. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh people. I sure ken lee without you, I luv u all so much. But I won't solve your dispute over that flag, and I also won't solve your English problems. Some people are heading for a renewed topic ban, is all I can see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks exactly like my pussy. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I sometimes feel more like this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are similar to this one, Katze, I think.[5] Jingby (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Jing, perhaps you should reconsider the flag thing. I mean, even if they are the Bulgarian flags of Bulgarian uprisings (which I agree they are), they are still part of the history of the Republic. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Man, I wont see your logical explanation of this view. Jingby (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess Kekrops has a point. You guys need to come off your fixation that an historic event is "owned" by either this or that nation. That Krushevo republic episode is clearly part of the history of the Republic, and also part of the nation building process that ended up with the establishment of the present situation, even if it was (naturally) not yet fully framed in the same ideological terms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is why I cannot comprehend Bulgarians "already made up" minds. Look we all know your views are Macedonian = Bulgarian Jingiby, considering you went as far as to call me a Macedonist, and you won't say anything that may hurt that argument. But honestly, I am tired of repeating myself over and over:

Britannica: "By the end of World War I, however, IMRO’s indiscriminate and unprincipled use of terror had alienated both its Macedonian and Bulgarian supporters."

Britannica: "The organization split into two rival factions, which engaged in frequent gunfights in Sofia in an effort to annihilate one another."

Seriously Future: Wikipedia is turning into a joke, which source should I use: Britannica which is written by professionals in the subject of history or Wikipedia which has biased views on the argument because their are more Bulgarians/Greeks then Macedonians. Jingiby sorry your not a historian buddy and I have been stating all along IMRO was 2 branches and that it wasn't JUST Bulgarian, but I guess we can ignore the experts since you "found" flags from "Bulgarian army.com" Mactruth (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Future, what to do? Jingiby has realized that he cannot remove the flag of the Krusevo Republic anymore, but he continues to remove the IMRO flag? I do not want to get topic banned, but I know if I "undo" it he will simply repeat the same action with a different argument. I would like your opinion before action is taken Mactruth (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

PS Future: Aren't you proud of my behavior? I am not exploding like I had before my ban. My God... I am maturing :) Mactruth (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I can remove the Bulgarian flag from Krushevo, my frend, but I take into considerationthe the meaning of my opponents. But the flag of IMRO /now surprisingly you recognised the flag have described as ILINDEN UPRISING flag is IMRO - flag/ is political not national symbol!

Academician Ivan Katardzhiev, Director of the Historical Sciences section in the Department of Social Sciences in the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts and the Director of the Macedonian State Archive Ph. D. Zoran Todorovski have said on that account:

Academician Katardziev:

"... All Macedonian revolutionaries from the period before 1930-ies considered themselves as "Bulgarians" and asserts that: "... separatism of some Macedonian revolutionaties toward official Bulgarian policy was only political phenomenon without ethnic character..."

Ph. D. Zoran Todorovski:

"...It was any difference between the left and the right revolutionaries from IMRO in ethnic sence, all of them declared themselves as Bulgarians..."

And in summer of 2007 the former Premier and Vice-President of RoM Georgievski published his book "Facing the truth". In it he reveals his attitude to Macedonian identity and Bulgarian past in the Republic of Macedonia:

..."Why are we ashamed and flee from the truth that whole positive Macedonian revolutionary tradition comes exactly from exarchist part of Macedonian people. We shall not say a new truth if we mention the fact that everyone, Gotse Delchev, Dame Gruev, Gjorche Petrov, Pere Toshev - must I list and count all of them - were Bulgarian's Exarchate teachers in Macedonia..."

And who are you? Jingby (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, can you two please take this discussion to the relevant talk page? Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight, don't call me your friend since not only do you call me your "opponent" (this isn't a game) in your next sentence, but you have also called me a Macedonist, which I view as racist. It is clear you are hear to debate, which if that's the case goto a forum. Trust me I giggled just a little bit with your statements, but the fact of the matter is I'm not hear to debate with someone who has a predetermined view that "Macedonian=Bulgarian." Let's get one thing straight, I won't change your views and you probably won't change mine so there is no point in wasting my time to convince just one person that Macedonians exist. Believe me, I know who I am and the mere idea of spending all day everyday convincing one Bulgarian at a time the same thing is just a waste. Anyways, keep changing the article, but I'm not the only one "undo"ing your edits. Most of your contributions are for Macedonia related issues, so it is clear why you are here. But, lets get off Futures talk page already. 98.243.158.123 (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The today flag from Bulgarian political organisation was added again as flag fron Ilinden Uprising, when it did even not exist. It is presented as historical flag from a country. This is nonsence.[6]Jingby (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This Image:IlindenFlag svg.png is uploaded against the rules from Wikipedia. No source, Zukiger is also not the copyright holder. How about this bulshit. Jingby (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Jingiby the only thing I see is impatience to discuss issue since you already have a pre-determined mind about all the issues. Future, I cannot have an intellectual conversation with someone who is narrow minded as Jingiby, this is why I did not respond to his comments in the first place. I provided sources for the flags, and each time when he was shown to be wrong, he changed his argument. Recently he has again changed his stance to stating FOTW is not a reliable source. These are things not worth wasting time on. Future, I'll wait for your response.

Look at the editing of Flags of RoM article and Ilindenflag image to get a more detailed look at the situation. (Mactruth) 98.243.158.123 (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sourced articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Regards! See:Wikipedia:Verifiability Jingby (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you use of the "Bulgarian flags" with the source of "Bulgarian Army" qualifies as Reliable right Jingiby? In any case, you have flip-flopped your argument so many times that it is already known the more time I spend on you, the more new arguments you come up with to suit your agenda. Anyways Future, I replied on the talk page of Flags of the Republic of Macedonia. Mactruth (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.Jingby (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

ok Jingiby now your jumping all over the place. Read my reply on the talk page of Flags of the Republic of Macedonia Mactruth (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The unbelivable sources! A joke?

Proposal of national flag - Image by António Martins, 19 February 1999

A red over black flag was proposed as the national Macedonian flag in 1903 but was never officially adopted.

Jaume Ollé, 24 October 1998

The black and red flag is used today by the football club Vardar from Skopje. His supporters are called Komiti (fighters for freedom). The real Macedonian flag was red with a golden gun and knife crossed in saltire in the middle of the flag, or in the upper left corner of the flag. The red background symbolized the blood of all Macedonians who had died or were about to die for the freedom of Macedonia. The golden gun and knife meant fight till death, and death for every one who will spy and betray the oath they had given in the name of freedom of Macedonia.

Goce G., 18 March 2001

The traditional Macedonian flag had two equal horizontal parts, the upper half being red and the lower black. This traditional Macedonian flag shad also a symbolic meaning - the same meaning as the slogan of the Macedonian fighters from the beginning of the century: "Freedom (red) or Death (black)". During the 1903 Ilinden uprising and the Kruševo republic the formal flag of Macedonian fighters was black and red. Željko Heimer, 13 March 2002

Red color might mean freedom, but the original meaning was the blood of all Macedonians who died fighting for the freedom of their motherland, Macedonia. The black color symbolized the death of Goce Delčev, the ideologist of Macedonian freedom movement in the late 1890s and the beginning of the XXth century, more accurately, until 4 May 1903, when he was killed after having been surrounded by the Turk soldiers in the village of Banica, now in Greece.

Goče G., 18 March 2001

Eh, Macedonists ... Jingby (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The same source! A joke?

Image located by Dov Gutterman at http://www.bulgariaonline.bg/macedonia/

Flag with initials used on it. The Bulgarian/Macedonian name that sounds something like "Vnutrashnya Makedonska Revolucionarna Organizacija." BMRO fought primarily against Turks for the independence of Bulgaria and Macedonia, and as might be seen from the flag, the ideology was anarchic-revolutionary (as were the methods). The group was soon (at the beginning of the 20th Century) split between those wanting Macedonia as a part of Bulgaria and those struggling for the independence of Macedonia. Therefore, to cut the story short, today we have VMRO both in modern Bulgaria and Macedonia (where it is called VMRO-DPMNE), both being modern democratic parties that have long forsaken their anarcho-revolutionary methods. Željko Heimer, 24 February 2002 Jingby (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The same source! Again joke?

Official flag of VMRO-DPMNE

Article 5 of the party statutes says:

The Party has a coat of arms, a flag and an anthem.

The Party coat of arms is a stylized-shaped lion with a crown in gold colour pictured on a red shield. Above the shield is a red ribbon with yellow letters inscribed 1893-1990, and below the shield on a red ribbon is isnscribed with yellow letters the name of the party VMRO-DPMNE.

The Party flag has a ratio of 1:2, divided along the length in red-black halves, in ratio one to each other as one to one, and in the upper left corner on the red field is set the Party coat of arms.

The flag and the coat of arms of the party are shown on the party website. However, the statutes mentioned above clearly state that the emblem should be placed in upper left corner, not in the middle as shown on that image.

Željko Heimer, 20 November 2001

1893 is the year when the Macedonian national-liberation organization called VMRO was formed and the year 1990 symbolizes the year when VMRO-DPMNE was formed, claiming to be the successor of the historical VMRO.

Zdravko Saveski, 20 October 2002 Jingby (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No more jokes

Flag of IMRO.

The statute of Bulgarian Party VMRO-BND, 2008 (in Bulgarian) Art. 3. Par 1. Знаме с правоъгълна форма, разделено на две равни части, като горната част е в червен цвят, а долната - в черен и със златен надпис в средата ВМРО-БНД. Rough translation: Banner with rectangle form and divided in two equal parts. The upper part is in red and the lower part is in black colour. [7]

The statute of Macedonian Party VMRO-DPMNE, 2008 (In Macedonian) Article 5, Par. 3: Партиското знаме е со димензии со однос 2:1 по должина, поделено на црвено-црни полиња, чиј сооднос е еден спрема еден, а во горниот лев агол на црвена основа е поставен партискиот грб. Rough translation: The Party flag has a ratio of 1:2, divided along the length in red-black halves, in ratio one to each other as one to one, and in the upper left corner on the red field is set the Party coat of arms.[8]

Stop using political symbols for nationalistic PROPAGANDA! Jingby (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

According to an article from the Macedonian journalist Spase Shuplinovski in the Macedonian mainstream daily newspaper Utrinski vesnik - issue 1166, October 16, 2006 [9] the flag of the Macedonian party VMRO - DPMNE was adopted from Ivan Mihaylov's IMRO, which was established in 1920 and was banned in 1934. Jingby (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Mactruth starts again the stupid, nationalistic, groundless edit-war and changes the name from the uploaded banner of IMRO, after the speedy deletion of his copyright violated image. [10] Now he claims again his non - sourced bulshits.[11] Jingby (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And here he hids part from reliable info: "The insurgents in Krushevo flew also Bulgarian flags everywhere." [12] Jingby (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Block of Dimboukas

Hi. I would like to comment on this block that you made. I find it very disturbing that you should block someone to "get user's attention", as you put it. This matter, while important, was clearly not so urgent as to require this kind of out-of-process action: blocks should be the last resort to deal with problematic editors.

I recognise that you had good intentions in doing this, that the editor concerned was not overly upset, and that this is now a good few days ago, but I feel it would be entirely proper for me to register my belief that blocking users in this way should not happen and to request that you refrain from making such blocks in the future.

Thank you.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank your for your message. Your opinion is duly noted. However, I will register my disagreement: this was a proper if uncommon action, in my view. First, a block that is made with the express provision that it will be lifted immediately after a user's next login, on condition of just literally saying three words, does not improperly hurt a user. The time that he was actually prevented from editing was a matter of a few minutes. There also is no serious stain in his block log or anything, because the block message was entirely non-accusatory and the unblock message very clear. Second, I maintain this was, in effect, a rule-conforming disruption block. A user who creates copyright violations has an obligation to actively help with the necessary cleanup work he has caused. Failing to do so, when asked politely and repeatedly, is in itself a disruptive act. His silence was causing concrete harm, in the sense of causing people on commons (including myself) unnecessary work.

By the way, he wasn't just "not overly upset" with the block, he was actually grateful I treated him so well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image permission

I have the email and tagged as they asked. Is there more to do with this? I'll save the email. They're sending me hard copy too. Diff here. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good to hear. I guess when they talk about the attribution line they'd mean they want that on the article itself, wouldn't they? About the e-mail, perhaps it would be good to also forward it to OTRS. By the way, can you do me a favour and also modify the FUR for that image a bit? You know I'm still not really happy with the image, but at least let's have a rationale that somehow makes sense and is a decent model. The "replaceable" entry really is quite meaningless; that wording makes sense for fiction-related stuff where we are discussing the copyrighted work as an object of art; in this case here, the question is not about replaceability with a derivative version of the same image, but about replaceability with some different image or with no image at all. And the "purpose of use" really ought to say something concrete about what this particular image is supposed to be doing in this particular article; that's the whole point about having FURs. Too many people treat FURs as meaningless boilerplate templates, that's a trend that really perverts the whole idea behind it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at the FUR, but you can probably think of something better. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I probably wouldn't be able to help, sorry. Because, as I said, I personally still don't believe it does meet NFCC. I couldn't truthfully write a FUR I don't believe in, even if I wanted to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Koavf and bilateral relation moves, again

Hi. Please refer to this note. Thanks. Regards, El_C 08:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What's he been moving now? I can't that quickly find it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I know, there's a lot of moves to wade through. At around August 13. Basically, doing what he was cautioned against last year. El_C 08:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Ah, got it. Ugh. There was a recent discussion at "Categories for discussion" that led to a renaming of the related categories according to the noun-noun style. I would have opposed that had I been aware of it, but as long as it's just the categories, it doesn't do much harm. But the articles shouldn't be forced in this way. By the way, was it intentional that you moved them to a title with en-dash (or em-dash even?) instead of the normal hyphen? That, too, strikes me as suboptimal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I did that on purpose, because a lot of his moves were to just move to the dash (he is citing "wp:dash"). Myself, I prefer a normal dash, but I didn't want to have those articles moved a second time for the dashes (which may yet happen, as I think I accidentally added m- instead of n-dash as originally intended). Incidentally, I didn't revert all his moves, there's still many I missed (so many of these noun-over-scholarly renames are mixed with the "wp:dash"). It's really difficult to keep up with Koavf page moves, but I said that last year, so nothing new under or at the imperfect sun. El_C 09:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Cite WP:HYPHEN back at him. I don't think cases like "French-German relations" fall under the classes mentioned at WP:DASH. I've never seen those spelled with an en-dash. Just checked google books and google news, and they seem to be spelled with simply hyphens throughout. Perhaps one might want an en dash for the more syntactically complex, noun-phrasey cases, like "United States–Iran" or whatever. But I don't see why you wouldn't use a simple hyphen in Adjective-Adjective compounds. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the MoS, excepting a few prominent areas, is labyrinthine and self-contradictory. Usually, only those principles which are well grounded outside of it, beyond Wikipedia users' own (often somewhat arbitrary) preferences, to those usages which enjoy consensus outside of Wikipedia, in this case, in international relations and diplomacy, are ones which should be followed. I am unsure as to what model Koavf follows. El_C 09:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments First off, thanks to El C for inviting me to discuss. I will say this much initially:

1. As the articles were named, there was no consistency in the slightest. Virtually any combination of adjectivals, nouns, and types of dashes/hyphens were used with some in a form that wasn't even internally consistent (e.g. Cyprus-Ukrainian relations.) Since there was no standard of any kind in place, I figured that it would be of no consequence if I renamed them to something consistent, especially one that apparently met the standards of a naming convention. What is so bad about some consistently-named articles in this arbitrary hodge-podge?
2. I honestly have no idea what "noun-over-scholarly-rename" means. If you are convinced that there is some scholarly consensus to use the type (e.g.) "Franco-German relations" that remains to be seen by me. If so, then please use it consistently.
3. As was pointed out above, there was a consensus to use the form "<Noun>–<Noun> relations" for categories. I posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Naming of bilateral relations articles and categories pretty late into the CfD; as best as I can tell, no one at that project responded. As far as I'm aware, the only discussion on achieving a consensus on this matter (other than the CfD) is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Archive 1#How many articles should we have on bilateral relations.3F and there is hardly any consensus there, let alone one as open to the community as WP:CfD is. Considering the fact that there is a consensus for "<Noun>–<Noun> relations" form for categories, I really can't think of any compelling reason to have articles not obey that same standard. Can you?
4. I would like to reiterate my rational for that nascent standard: 1. My understanding of WP:DASH, 2. alphabetical order for names of states for neutrality and consistency, and 3. Use of noun forms rather than adjectivals. I propose that this is preferable because of instances where there are two states with the same adjectival form (eg. "Dominican" and "Congolese"), one state with two adjectival forms (e.g. "British" and "Anglo-" for the United Kingdom, itself a bit dodgy since the latter implies English rather than British), and instances where both are the case (e.g. "Chinese" and "Sino-" for the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China.) Altogether, I think they make a strong case for a consistent and unambiguous standard that is about as arbitrary as the collation of the alphabet.

In sum, considering how there was no application of any kind of standard before and how there is some consensus of the sort to do as I have done, I don't see what the problem is and I would recommend that others assist me in enforcing some kind of rationality to these names. If you think that should be some other standard, I would be fine with that as long as there is an actual consensus to use it and it's actually applied.

I will not be watching your talk page unless you request I do so please post on my talk if that is necessary. Again, thank you for notifying me to explain myself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You ask: "I really can't think of any compelling reason to have articles not obey that same standard. Can you?" Yes, I can. WP:USEENGLISH. That's the overriding policy here. Consistency is all fine and dandy, but Wikipedia naming should not and cannot attempt to be more consistent than the English language itself. It is a fact that country names in English are not a grammatically consistent class. What works syntactically with "United States–Venezuela relations" does not work with "German-Polish relations". People just don't say "Germany–Poland relations". It's simply wrong.

So, my opinion is still the same as a year ago: you got your sense of priorities wrong. Wikipedia naming policy favours whatever is most natural and common for each individual article. Naturalness is more important than consistency. Please respect the decisions local editors have taken about what they find sounds best and reflects actual usage in the relevant literature about their particular countries. Some careful changes to details such as consistency in capitalisation is okay, but please don't force your unitary scheme on article where people have made well-considered different choices. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Use English While you are correct that common names are preferred, if there is not a common name and instead it is a construct, style guides prevail; there is not a "wrong" approach other than one that is nonsense. Your post assumes that local editors have been at all considerate about making these articles and that is clearly not the case in a significant portion of them - e.g. the name of the article listed above or the wildly disparate names of Greek relations articles, or the preponderance of malformed bilateral relations stubs. Many of these were made with abandon. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct English It is one thing to say that a construct is not common and another to say that it is ungrammatical. While the phrase "Germany–Japan relations" is certainly more rare than "German–Japanese relations" or "Japanese–German relations," there is nothing syntactically incorrect about it (I am speaking as a native speaker of American English.) If you want to use the most common names of these bilateral relations, certainly all the "Sino–X relations" would be changed, as "Chinese" is infinitely more common. What you and El C are suggesting are directly contradictory as one of you is proposing most common names (e.g. "Chinese" not "Sino") and the other scholarly names ("Sino"); again, the only consensus on this matter was the one I mentioned above and I think it was useful for some users because it ignores these same kind of issues: which name is more common? Which name is used in scholarly literature? Which has more Google hits? If these constructions were actually ungrammatical or confounding, then I think your argument(s) would be stronger, but as it is, anyone would understand what "Germany–Japan relations" means even if he would not be inclined to say it in casual speech or formal writing. ("Sino–Japanese relations" would be confusing to at least some speakers; of course, I do not have polling data for what percentage.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Contention I do understand what you are saying: your preference is to jettison a particular rule in favor of what is conventional in English, whereas I am in favor of uniformity at the expense of what might be more common. We are both agreed that there are some constructions which are simply too monstrous to make and those should be avoided. I suspect we are also in agreement that there are some conventional and slang terminology that are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. In an encyclopedia, my bias is to defer to what is a standardized and systematized rather than the vernacular because that is what I would expect out of professional writing. Since these forms are not unintelligible or so bizarre as to warrant confusion (i.e. who would be confused at the meaning of "Germany–Poland relations?"), I am still in favor of them being applied in some kind of uniform manner. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No sense? When you talk about how language is spoken, you are talking about the vernacular; you are the one who brought up the notion, not me. I am not mistaking my own made-up standards (I have no idea what a non-made-up standard in language would even be...), rather, I am saying that in the abstract that is my preference. Regardless of what the standard is, I am generally in favor of enforcing it as a naming convention. You also make the bold and simply untrue claim that "the only true standard that exists in language [is] that which speakers actually do." Are you not familiar with the arbitrary standards of manuals of style or of language regulators? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Burusho

Hi Katze, this people are very special. They began again. Take a look. They do not recognize any compromise for long time and make permanent attempts to do only Kitsch and Kitsch and so weiter ... Jingby (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Map kozani.jpg

User:Makedonas continues to add a copyrighted image that has been deleted, claiming it as PD. See here: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_June_29#Image:Kozanimap.jpg. Can you please do something about this? _{El Greco}^(talk) 18:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image

Hi, can you please help me with an image. I am a bit confused what will be the copyright tag for Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg. Will Template:Non-free magazine cover be more appropriate? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Magazine cover" should be fine; can't see any reason why not. Seems more directly applicable than the "historic image" one it had earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the copyright tag. But there is another problem with the Image:German anti-smoking ad.jpeg. The editor raised concern that it is not unique historic image since there are similar ads, so what will be appropriate copyright tag for this image. I cannot find any proper copyright tag for this image among which are listed in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to {{Non-free 2D art}}, that seems the most applicable. Provided of course your article does in fact engage in some sort of analytic discussion of this type of caricature – like, what style of propagandistic techniques they typically used in them, that sort of thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am facing another problem with finding the copyright holder. Is it necessary to mention the name of the copyright holder? British Medical Journal does not clarify anything on this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, now it's getting tricky :-) But I think we needn't worry too much about it. Since it's from the "Reine Luft" paper, the copyright would probably have been either with its publishers, the "Deutscher Bund zur Bekämpfung der Tabakgefahren e.V." [13] (or its heirs, whoever that might be), or the artist, whose name seems to be "Lehnert". I guess we don't need to exaggerate here though, just put in that it's from that magazine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it is annoying job to be so nit picky with images. But I have to do this due to the NFC police in the FA nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

File:1994Chinookcrash02.jpg

Hey, I noticed you deleted this while discussion was still ongoing at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 21. Please restore it until a consensus is apparent. Thanks in advance, --John (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a speedy deletion for an obvious violation of the rules cited, done 48h after notification according to the rules. There is no need for further discussion. The rules are crystal clear, and consensus cannot overrule them in such a case. It is quite common for IfD cases to be closed early where speedy deletion criteria are met. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, as do the majority of those who commented. Would you prefer to take it to AN/I or a deletion review, I'll let you choose. --John (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are out of order deleting this and other images while discussion was still in progress after a couple of days, particularly as you had participated in debating and !voting on other images on the same page where the same issue had arisen. That is an abusive use of admin tools. You should leave it to an uninvolved admin to make the decision. Kindly restore the deleted images so the discussions can continue. Ty 00:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed your deletion log, I am inclined to agree with Tyrenius. Whatever your views on fair use, it is inappropriate for you to speedy delete images in whose IFDs you have participated. For the same reason I have held back from undeleting them. Here is the policy your deletion is in breach of: Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools. However "crystal clear" this issue may seem to you, you are certainly not permitted to act in this fashion, and your action shows scant respect to the many who disagree with you. Please reconsider, as I would far rather resolve this amicably than take it to AN/I. Thanks for your consideration. --John (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Take it wherever you like; probably DRV is the most correct process. I have nothing much to say over and above what I already said. These were 100% copyvios, they get deleted, period. The rules about commercial images have been in place for ages, and there are dozens of precedents of such IfDs and DRVs. In every such case, you get up to a half dozen editors who will vociferously argue that the rule doesn't exist, or who will fail to grasp the difference between a necessary and a sufficient criterion, or will just try to hand-wave it away. Their ignorance does nothing to change the fact that the rule in fact does exist, that it in fact is crystal clear, and that it in fact does get enforced. And, unless I made some unintentional mistake, I didn't close any I voted in. The fact that I educated some editors about the policy in the context of similar debates doesn't make me "involved" in any meaningful sense, or else no administrator who had ever warned a user of vandalism could ever again make an anti-vandal block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for your reply, and see you on AN/I; as this is a matter of your conduct now, I think it better to raise it there. I couldn't care less if the fair use image I uploaded to illustrate the Chinook article got deleted, but I'm not willingly working with an admin with an attitude like yours, sorry. I take it all the stuff I quoted about your abuse of admin privilege went right over your head; that's a shame if so. Maybe it is you who needs to be educated. Have a great day, and see you around. --John (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --John (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:Chillenden windmill blown down.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Chillenden windmill blown down.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mjroots (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Vergina Sun

I'm not sure if you have visited the Macedonian (ethnic group) template talk page, but I responded to your comments:

The Vergina Sun is claimed by Greeks to be a Greek symbol, I on the other hand believe it is a regional symbol just like the double headed eagle. Why? Thracians also have been shown to use, not only the Greek alphabet, but also the Vergina Sun. Also, Czar Samuel of Bulgaria has also been shown to either use the Vergina Sun or treasure the symbol due to its finding in his Ohrid castle. So, if it were Greek, then Thracians and Czar Samuel are Greek also according to Greek logic.

I agree Greeks used the symbol, but so did non-Greeks thus it is a regional symbol. That is why I cannot understand why Greek Macedonians get to self-determinate with the symbol, but ethnic Macedonians are not allowed to on WP. The Vergina Sun is not officially used in Greek Macedonia, yet the flag of the Vergina Sun on a blue background is still used in the article Macedonia (Greece). In my opinion, either both should be able to use it, or none should use it on Wikipedia because when only one group is allowed to use it a double standard occurs, and its use becomes exclusive even though outside of Wikipedia it is not. Mactruth (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian archaeologist Bajana Mojsov told The World Today the symbolic weight attached to the Vergina Star was archaeologically absurd - but politically inevitable. "The star of vergina applies to the 3rd Century BC northern Greece - a very different situation, not related to the 21st Century AD."I think it's modern politics, and we're witnessing the use of an archaeological symbol for history that it's really not related to."-- From [14] --Lantonov (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I believe Greek Macedonians use the symbol as political reasons, considering it was not used until Republic of Macedonia adopted it in 1991. The flag for ethnic Macedonians is not an ancient symbol, I agree. But I believe it represents the Macedonians well, the red background representing Macedonian blood has been around since Krusevo Republic, and the "Sun of Liberty" (as stated in the Macedonian anthem) was depicted using the Vergina Sun. And being forced to change the flag only causes the Macedonians to rebel against it and use it more.

I have always agreed Greek Macedonians and ethnic Macedonians should not use it do to views that it has been historically used throughout time. Both haven't used it til it was found in the 1970s and the symbol was well known by then, even being used in movies. Mactruth (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"It developed because nation states needed it for prestige and history and authenticity," stated Neal Ascherson, editor of Public Archaeology magazine. "One recurring theme is 'we are going to show you that we have always been here' - or alternatively that 'we have been here before you came'."Basically, it was hugely useful to nervous people unsure of their own authenticity wanting to prove it with the spade."Some archaeologists argue that throughout history data has been unscrupulously misused.Adolf Hitler was so fond of archaeology that he gave the SS secret service special archaeological units, so that they could dig to prove a Nazi ideological bond of soil and nationhood.Meanwhile, both Nazi and Soviet archaeologists interpreted the same evidence to prove that Poland was Germanic or Slav.Similar abuses occurred during the Balkans conflicts following Yugoslavia's break-up - not just in Macedonia, but throughout the region, argued Stasa Babic of Belgrade University.--[Some more from the above paper]. --Lantonov (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, that is why its important for both Greek-Macedonians and ethnic-Macedonians to recognize the truth behind the matter: it was a new symbol for both peoples. 98.243.158.123 (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

New for Republic of Macedonia, and very old (ancient) for Greece. --Lantonov (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is where the confusion lies. You speak of states, I speak of the people. Ethnic Macedonians use of the Vergina Sun was new, but Greek Macedonians use of the Vergina Sun was introduced in the 1980s also. This is well known, and if you'd like to prove me wrong then show the sources for it. During the Greek struggle for Macedonia, there was no flag with the Vergina Sun on it. Most of the Macedonians fighters were Cretan volunteers, and even Pavlos Melas, the leader of the struggle and today viewed as a Greek-Macedonian, originates from Epirus.

Greek Macedonian is a new phenomenon which is comprised of Pontic Greeks, Christian Turks, assimilated ethnic Macedonians/Bulgarians/Vlach and also some Hellenic Greeks just like Ethnic Macedonian is an ethnicity comprised of Vlach/Bulgars/Serbs and some natives of Macedonia who only called themselves Macedonian. In any case, my argument is that the use of the Vergina Sun in moderns times cannot be associated with the use of the Vergina Sun in the ancient times because the Macedonia history is complex, and the use of the Vergina Sun was abandoned a long time ago before it was introduced again in the 1980s. And in my opinion, the use of it in Greek Macedonia is to develop the Greek-Macedonian identity and further assimilate the natives. Mactruth (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I get your point. In both cases it shouldn't be on modern flags. I agree with this. However, in other aspects I can't agree. Your arguments are self-defeating. You speak of Vergina Star ("Sun") as purely Macedonian (excluding Greek) symbol that shouldn't be used by Greeks at all. On the other hand you say that it is not only Macedonian (used by Thracians, among others). Thracians, as well as ancient Macedonians were in the Greek cultural sphere of influence. So the symbol is all-Greek (Greek in the wide regional sense) before being Macedonian, in the narrower regional sense. Krushevo Republic and so on don't get into this discussion at all, first because they didn't use Vergina Sun at all (on all the flags the symbol was the Bulgarian Lion, including the flag of VMORO -- red and black 50:50), and second, because these are relatively recent events. --Lantonov (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you mixed my statements, I'll try to clear it up

• I never stated the Vergina Sun is a purely Macedonian symbol, and I never stated it shouldn't be used by the Greeks. I stated that the symbol is regional since ancient Macedonians, Thracians, Bulgarians and Greeks were shown to use it and because of that I don't believe Greece should claim exclusivity on the symbol.
• You are correct, it is not only Macedonian, it is regional. It may be possible the Greeks invented the symbol, then non-Greeks used it thus making it non-exclusive. Imagine if Italy stating only they could use the double-headed eagle since it originated from Rome.
• Krusevo never used the Vergina Sun. I stated the Krusevo republic was a red flag, and the red flag is now the background of the Republic of Macedonia's flag Mactruth (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, then I have misunderstood. I didn't know that Thracians or Bulgarians used Vergina Sun. Anything reliable (academic) on this? --Lantonov (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Czar Samuel used drinking cups and there were coins with the Vergina Sun found on it in Samuel's castle in Ohrid. Here's an example of the Vergina Sun on Thracian Coins. Research if you wanna find out more, I don't have the time but I'll try later on.

I don't have the faintest idea whether the so called vergina "sun" symbol has been used by Thracians or Bulgarians (although it doesn't seem improbable) but just for the sake of accuracy the coin you just linked to, is from Panticapaeum, a full blown greek ionian colony, so you'd better come up with something else. On a side note, since you seem to be interested in the identities of the dead interred in Tomb II at Vergina, I advise you to have a look at the most recent paper on the subject. It actually supports the Philippos Arrhidaios - Adea Euridice identification http://www.atypon-link.com/ASCS/doi/abs/10.2972/hesp.77.2.335. Cheers--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW -if it means anything- this whole star-sun blah blah thing would be utterly stupid if it weren't for the utterly non sensical (but highly suspicious) political connotations it aquired. It is actually a most common decorative motif, although from a point on, it may have been linked to the Ancient Macedonian ruling family. So "to much ado about nothing" ...--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if Vergina Sun is found in a Thracian tomb -- Thracians used Greek or Greek-related symbols, utensils, etc. all over the place. I would be more surprised if Bulgars (Proto-Bulgarians) used this symbol because they had another world-view, culture, religion. For Samuil (Bulgarians), Vergina Sun is possible, but not very probable. The coins in question, however, are from a purely Greek colony, which had nothing in common with Thracians. Such Greek colonies existed over the whole shore of the Black Sea (ancient name Hellespont - Greek Sea) including in present-day Bulgaria. Many towns on our sea-side have its native population Greeks (speaking Greek and with Greek names), mostly fishermen, until the present day. They come from the old Greek colonies on the shore. The sea towns themselves have Greek names even today - Sozopol, Achtopol, Nesebar, river Ropotamo, etc. Many of the native population left for Greece in the wars. I agree that the whole story of raising an ancient symbol from the dead and putting it on a flag of a country, such as that of the Republic of Macedonia is a dumb thing if there were not the political connotations. With politics in, it becomes racism, much like the swastica in Nazi Germany which was raised from the tombs and temples of ancient Indians (from India). --Lantonov (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

POV edits

Please see the last edits of User:Tsourkpk, who reverted my edits and violated Wikipedia:NCGN. balkanian (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Also he broke WP:3RR in Vlora and Himara. This is an edit war by him.balkanian (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

When quality control volunteers ignore the wikipedia's civility policies

I mentioned a comment you made on User talk:Damiens.rf in my own comment. I think I disagree with you. If he can't conduct his volunteer quality control efforts in a manner that complies with WP:BITE and the wikipedia's other civility policies then it doesn't matter if other insiders agree that some of his nominations hold merit.

All the wikipedia's policies are important -- not just those that concern copyright. And volunteers who ignore the civility policies in their vandal and cruft fighting efforts are costly to the project. If their quality control efforts are too rude, and too incivil, their efforts can be just as damaging as the worst, most malicious vandal.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's well said. I am a deletionist myself, and often enforce copyright. But civility and abiding by our norms on reaching consensus are paramount. If you can indicate that you understand this and undertake to do things differently in future, I will regard the matter as resolved. I think you will agree that there is significant concern at the AN/I thread about your actions; please don't delete images yourself that you have been involved in discussing, and please remember that while we all have our particular hobby-horses here, there is no deadline for making these improvements. If you can do this maybe we can all get on with more productive activities. What do you say? --John (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criteria are meant to be applied exactly as I applied them: to shorten debates that are predictable and futile. That's why we have them. Every so often, somebody thinks (in perfectly good faith) it's a good idea to write an article about their non-notable band. Every so often, such a user thinks (in perfectly good faith) that "Oh, but they are way cool, and they have published a song on myspace!" is a valid argument to keep such an article, and will defend it strenuously. We have criterion A7 so that we don't need to waste time debating such cases. Every so often, somebody thinks it's a good idea to rip off somebody's commercial news images just because it would be way nice to have them. Every so often, such a user thinks that "Oh, but I want it so badly, it's irreplaceable!" is a good argument to keep such an image. We have criterion I7 exactly so that we don't need to waste time debating such cases. Because the project has decided, once and for all, that we just don't do that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So basically you are standing by your actions in spite of the AN/I discussion going against you? That doesn't bode well for your future here, in my opinion, but that is your choice. Would you consider a voluntary recall of your adminship? I ask because I believe you have lost the confidence of a significant proportion of the community. You have certainly lost my confidence. Are you really unable to examine your own actions honestly, and answer properly the question I asked? And please don't make any more patronizing analogies with non-notable bands. Thanks for your time. --John (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my actions in light of the fact that I am now seeing the sixth deletion review heading to towards confirming these kinds of deletions by me. I do not accept recall. If you want my head, you'll need to go to Arbcom. And the analogy with the A7 speedies still stands, even if you don't like to hear it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A deletion review does not determine whether "these kinds of deletions by [you]" are right or proper, it determines whether the deleted matter should be recreated. As many people have pointed out, by deleting images while there is a discussion under way on whether to delete, you shift the goalposts, as there now needs to be a consensus to undelete. This is cheating. It shows no respect for Wikipedia's policies, traditions or community. I do not "want [your] head", I want you to start acting like a responsible admin and member of the community, even if you don't like to hear it. Given your previous replies, your frivolous comments at the AN/I thread and your numerous assumptions of bad faith and rudeness I see the more I dig into your contributions, I really wonder if you need a break from editing, or certainly a break from taking contentious admin actions. If you don't voluntarily take one, the decision is likely to be taken out of your hands fairly soon I would say. The choice is yours of course but I counsel you to choose wisely. Bis nächsten Mal, --John (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just jumping in, as I have this watchlisted from another comment, that is 180 degrees out of whack for the purpose of DRV. DRV is not there to determine the merit of the subject in question. It is there solely to determine if the deletion (or retention) was done properly. Protonk (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, thank you, I didn't know that. --John (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I gather that's sarcasm. Protonk (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I very seldom use sarcasm and this was totally sincere. --John (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not here to endorse Fut Perf's methods or demeanor. And I also agree that DRV does change the starting point (making a status quo bias support deletion of the article). but I also notice something. I used to work on a submarine. We had 6 hour shifts on an 18 hour day, so people at all hours, often with someone else deep asleep a few feet away. As such, alarm clocks were a no-no. Instead, a guy (usually low ranking) walked around and woke people up for their watch. If he came to your bed, it meant you had to get up and go back to work. Naturally, the responses he got were usually less than pleasant. No one was really nasty to him, but no one was happy to see him. One particular wake-up-guy (as we will call them) complained about this to a more senior person. The person responded, "Look man, you're the wakeup guy. You tell people when it is time to stop sleeping and go to work. No one is going to thank you for this or pat you on the back." Guys like Fut Perf are the wakeup guys. What he does is delete things some people (by definition, since they are added) would rather not have deleted. In order to do this properly he has to do it a lot, so lots of people will be upset with him. He will have deleted something a thousand times but the person whose picture he deleted may have never experienced the process. As such, that person may want to go through the whole rigmarole of explaining each action in detail. In a perfect world, people like fut perf would sit down and use that as a teaching moment, calmly explaining why something doesn't fit guidelines and doesn't merit inclusion. Often, he does that. Often he doesn't do that. But even when he does that, that doesn't change the fact that for 99% of the people he deals with, he's the bad guy. He's always going to be the bad guy. So I cut a lot of slack to the wake-up guy. If he woke me up brusquely, I don't take that moment as a reason to rip his head off. Partly because enough people will do so groundlessly anyway and partly because he doesn't need it. So he's not in the right, necessarily, but that is why I jumped in and mentioned something. Protonk (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I hear what you're saying, Protonk. To follow your analogy though, if the "wake-up guy" intentionally broke the rules, he would still be subject to discipline, no? If he then made it clear he was not interested in the rules and would still continue to break them, there would be a consequence for the "wake-up guy", no? All admins get flak from time to time, but this is away beyond that. I am not arguing with FPS's deletionist views; to a degree I share them, although I think we differ in our interpretation of certain aspects of our mission. What I object to, and the community clearly objects to (see here) is the way FPS is behaving. Taking admin action on an image where you have been involved in the discussion is unacceptable. Treating the considered opinions of other experienced editors in good standing with contempt is unacceptable. Someone who doesn't get this is not well-suited to adminship. --John (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We are probably closer in agreement than it might seem. I don't mean to say that people who feel he's the "bad guy" do so generally because of his wikistance, but the first interaction he has with most users is almost always negative, and that isn't his fault. That element of it will cause many interpersonal problems to crop up where they might not have otherwise. As I said, I don't mean to defend his demeanor or methods. IfD is a different animal than AfD, so I'm not used to closes with 1-2 comments and I'm certainly not used to the practice of speedying the subject during a discussion. The actual practice of doing so may be improper, I don't know. But it is accurate to say that DRV's largely don't overturn his speedy's and that the images may or may not meet the CSD criteria while at IfD. But that's getting in to particulars. I just wanted to stick to the point that the crux of conflict here at least partially stems from FPS being 'the bad guy', not unilaterally support his actions. Also, as an aside, given how much of a political minefield recall and RfA are, I don't blame him if he doesn't want to relinquish the mop. Protonk (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Himara article

FPS, could you please revert 12.176.25.26 and lock for sometime the Himara article? It seems that the edit war has not stopped.Thanks Knonis1 (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR broken by user

Please see the edit war that is started in Igoumenitsa page. User:Zakronian has violated WP:NCGN. Please do something. balkanian (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Also in Margariti, Parga, Parapotamos, etc.balkanian (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bilateral relations

Hi! Bilateralism comprises the political and cultural relations between two states. This is from the Wikipedia's Bilateralism article. You said Germany-Japan relations are not English but i think there is nothing wrong with it. You re-moved it to German-Japanese relations. But German and Japanese words are not states' names. German-Japanese relations are the relations between Japanese people and German people and this is not bilateralism. Because a german might live outside of his/her country... It have to be Germany-Japan relations. Because agreements, protocols etc. are signed by countries, not by japanese or german people. I hope i could explain myself. Good editing! --Turkish Flame ^☎ 16:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Free image versus fair use image.

Ketleyn Quadros from Brazil, bronze medal, judo.

Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise. I understand that you are an expert in when to use fair use images. In 2008 Summer Olympics medal table somebody wants to use a free image from the white house with two American medal receivers Image:Michael Phelps Ryan Lochte Laszlo Cseh medals 2008 Olympics.jpg and others believes that it is US POV and want to use a fair use image Image:Beijingolympicsmedals.jpg. What's correct Wikiprocedure? Since you're a German, you're pretty neutral in this matter. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. Assuming that your description of the status of each image is correct and the one is really non-free and the other free, my opinion is, the non-free image of the medals is out, because it would be purely decorative. The purpose of the article is not to discuss the artistic design of the medals, so it is not really important for understanding it to have a visual representation of them. Hence, that image would fail WP:NFCC#8 (doesn't make a crucial contribution to understanding the article). As for the other image, I can understand why people wouldn't want an all-American winner image up there at the top. So, I hate to say it, but my own advice would be to have no image at all. The page is really supposed to be just a data table anyway, isn't it, so illustration is not really crucial either way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

See my suggestiona at right. --Damiens.rf 18:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you 'Future Perfect at Sunrise' for your piece of advice, I'll use it. I like Damiens' image but the atmosphere at 2008 Summer Olympics medal table is pretty tense so somebody would argue: "POV because it's only black people, women, Brazilians, judo fighters etc." --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Future Perfect at Sunrise's argument is false in one respect. A picture of the medals is not "decorative" it is "illustrative", and the question of whether it is "really important" for the reader to see the medals or not is an editorial question which has nothing whatsoever to do with image policy. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that how a colloquial description of NFCC 8 would sound? If the picture doesn't help the reader understand the subject then it doesn't meet it? Protonk (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

But "illustrative" does not mean "does not help the reader understand". It's an everyday event that an image can suddenly enable a reader to understand what has not been made clear by text alone - it's why we have that expression about a picture being worth 1K words. To "illustrate" something is to show something, to "decorate" is to make something look pretty. Colors, border designs, nice looking models in swimsuits -- these are decorative; a picture relevant to the subject, which provides additional information visually, whether or not that particular information is mentioned in the text, is a legitimate and legal fair-use of an image. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't contest your first point (rereading my comment I can see how I didn't really make that clear....whoops). Illustrative definitely isn't decorative. What I contested was the gist of the second point. I think that it is a reasonable (if very rough and exclusive) reading of NFCC 8 to say that the inclusion of a non-free image to an article must illustrate the subject in a significant fashion or (and I don't think FPS would use the word or, but I would) in some fashion that can't be replaced by a textual description. that was my point, and I made a mess of it. :) Protonk (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One can almost always provide a fairly reasonable approximation of the contents of an image by the use of text, depending on how much text you're willing to squander in the process. One could replace the picture above with a long paragraph describing the person, what she's wearing the position of her body, the shape, texture and luster of the medal, etc. etc. etc., but it would be a rather empty exercise, since the image presents itself much better than any description, no matter how detailed and nuanced, can do. This being the case, your final criteria "can't be replaced by a textual description" really isn't very practical.

Yes, certainly, I agree that an image in an article should illustrate the subject of the article in some reasonable fashion, but I would disagree that the "rough and exclusive" reading of NFCC policy favored by FPS and others is "reasonable" by any, um, reasonable definition of "reasonable". In fact, by holding to a strict and unforgiving reading of the policy, FPS seeks to be quite "unreasonable", since he uses it to subvert reasonable IfD debates, wields it as a weapon to allow him to ignore consensus, and counters reasonable discussion with dogmatism. I don't call any of that kind of behavior "reasonable", by any stretch of the imagination. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this only balloons into the problem (for article writing) that you mention if we presume that the information conveyed in the picture is necessary to be conveyed in the article. In some cases it certainly is, and FPS's interpretation of NFCC 8 would be extraordinarily constraining. In many cases (e.g. the Paris Hilton doing stuff with regard to McCain campaign ads images), it isn't. This (I think) is where FPS's "decorative" statement stems from. In cases where the image represents something superfluous or trivial, replacing the image itself (e.g. Barack Obama entering a particular building for an organization. In an article about Obama's dealings with that particular organization the image might be useful. but seriously, We know what (and have free or released images related to) Obama looks like and we know what the building (or a building) looks like. so replacing the image doesn't require the artifice you suggest but just the text string "Obama went to building X to meet with organization Y"). I may be ascribing nuance to FPS where none exists. I'm not attempting to defend his actions in a wholesale manner. But I don't think the issue of his behavior or his interpretation of the NFCC is an open and shut case. Protonk (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, in specific cases, text can be used to replace non-free images without serious damage to the article -- although in your Obama example (which, I'm sorry, I'm not certain if it's a real case or a hypothetical) it's certainly possible that something about the way he enters the building (smiling and waving to the crowd vs. stiffly, with clenched jaw and fierce expression) can conceivably make a considerable difference.

The problem with FPS's method of dealing with images is that by trying to deal with them in a cut-and-dried manner (that I generally refer to as "dogmatic", which I don't think is particularly hyperbolic), there isn't a chance for those editorial nuances to be considered, because the images get caught up in the ringer of his absolutism and get the axe. That's why the IfD is the proper process and not FPS's admin/policy override of it. In the IfD, questions of balance, context, relevance, nuance, replaceability can all be considered, and the outcome of the debate will (hopefully) be influenced by those factors, in a way that FPS's axe-wielding cannot be.

To put it another way, while the IfD is analog and can vary from +1 to -1 with every value in between, FPS's process is essentially digital, thumbs up or thumbs down, and he's the guy deciding. No way is that in harmony with the essence of this project as I understand it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please take this off my page now? Ed, I think I've heard your opinion quite enough times. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we are too far divergent on your main point there. FPS certainly doesn't appear to be too interested in nuance with regard to image deletion. But his underlying interpretation of the NFCC is not as extreme as it is made out to be. Assuming that FPS were receptive to consensus, deferential and precise rather than blunt, peremptory and prone to unilateralism, his views on copyright would not be too far from the mainstream of users at IfD. So I think the issue here is very much conduct rather than interpretation. As for the Obama example (which was hypothetical, at least AFAIK), the caveats you mention are things that should be visible and noted in the FUR (as well as the IfD/DRV. For most of the deletions and deletion reviews I saw, that sort of justification was non-existent. Protonk (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

But, as I said, that's an editorial decision, not one of policy, and our process for making that decision is an IfD, not an admin's power to delete.

Anyway, I'm apparently being kicked out, but I agree, we're not too divergent. I'm not a strict inclusionist by any means, lines do have to be drawn, its just that the community needs to draw them, not self-appointed image police. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

an MfD you may want to take a look at

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Copywright Paranoia. I know you've got a pretty strong opinion about wikipedia's policies regarding Non-Free content, so you may want to weigh in there, good bad or indifferent. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Slight error in northern epirus map

In the otherwise excellent and informative map you made and posted in Northern Epirus,you included Corfu in the Greek Periphery of Epirus, but as far as I know that is not the case. It's part of the Ionian Islands Periphery. --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, thanks, Kekrops already told me. Didn't find time yet to make those corrections. There are a few others too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Please take part in the discussion in Talk:Igoumenitsabalkanian (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Yone Minagawa3.JPEG

Hmmmm - missed that by having too many tabs open at once, thanks.....all gone now. As for the howling, I had noticed and you have my sympathy - though you do fight long and hard. All the best - Peripitus (Talk) 13:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jingiby, A drama

Future what must be done about Jingiby, the person is copying/pasting his newest argument onto multiple user IDs and talk pages in a disruptive manner. He has also allowed his emotions to get the best of him, causing him to revert-war with multiple users using Bulgarian biased sources such as Pro-Macedonia and Macedonia-Science. I have tried being reasonable and create dialog, but the man is too impatient and too obsessed with proving Macedonian=Bulgarian, even going as far as stating offensive wording such as Macedonist several times. Up to now I have refrained from using offensive behavior. Mactruth (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Quoth nevermore

Hi Future Perfect. I saw User:Quoth nevermore, then saw your January 2008 post at User_talk:Quoth_nevermore#Your_user_page. The list also is at User:Knulclunk/massacre, User:AlphaEta/LOMArchive, User:Yaynorth, User:Philip Baird Shearer/List of massacres, User:David Kernow/List of massacres involving thousands of people, and User:Lord Gøn/List of mass murderers and spree killers. The topic is covered by List of events named massacres, so I'm not sure the best way to address the user page "User:Quoth nevermore" and the other user pages. Suntag (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've blanked the copy at User:Quoth nevermore (unfortunately with a mistaken edit summary, because I thought the original had been deleted, which is wrong). For the other editors, as far as they are still active, it would probably be good to ask them first if and why they think they need these pages. Would you do that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How do I file an appeal?

I don't see a button anywhere on the page for the deleted image for that.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 20:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You'd need to go to WP:DRV. Since your upload was essentially a re-creation of the same content previously deleted per IfD (and not by me, mind you), you really ought to have done that previously, rather than re-uploading in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Many of the articles on the Skopje template under the 'Sports' sub category sound amazingly alike. Is this allowed? They're almost all created by Cukiger and are all stubs and feature no citations. Also, my nomination for deletion of the template failed because, coincidentally, him and the creator of the template voted to keep it even though there is obviously no need for the bloated template as there is a category specifically called 'Skopje'. P.S. Forgive my laziness for not making sure, but I think Jingiby broke the 3RR rule on Flags of the Republic of Macedonia. Thanks Köbra | Könverse 09:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

First, Köbra, I don't know why you brought this up again it was decided that the template should be kept. Second, if you (Future Perfect at Sunrise) think this template needs to be deleted, then delete it, but then you will also have to delete many other city templates because they are just like it (examples: Template:Thessaloniki, Template:Ljubljana, etc). I created this template because it is useful and easier to navigate, and I don't see why it shouldn't be kept. --The Last King of Brush Park 01:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

DrV discussion

Just a note - one of your IfD decisions is under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_August_23#Bo_Yibo - Peripitus (Talk) 11:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Problematic user/Balkans

I mean Dkis (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Starfleet image

Why did you remove my Starfleet insignia image? It looks exactly like all the other images I have uploaded. It is mine and I am trying to share it to make the article better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by flans44 (talk • contribs)

It isn't really yours. Not if it shows an authentic design from Star Trek. Because then the copyright belongs to the Star Trek producers, even if you took the photograph. If it were really yours, that would mean it's unauthentic, so it wouldn't belong in the article.

Also, it didn't seem to be doing anything crucial in the article it was used in. There were lots of other images in there, but those were really commented upon and their significance was discussed in the article. Yours wasn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You must not really understand copyright law. Any picture I take with my camera is my property. The picture that I took is of a piece that I own, that only furthers my cause. It pertains to the article as it is a starfleet insignia and is worn on the uniforms. Have you ever seen Star Trek? --Flans44 23:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in Star Trek. But I know a bit more about copyright law. If the design of those insignia was made by the Star Trek authors, then the copyright is theirs, and if you take a photograph of it, its a "derivative work" and still belongs to them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you are absolutely wrong. That is why people are able to take pictures of celebrities and not have to pay the celebrity money. --Flans44 23:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A celebrity isn't a copyrighted item. Sorry, please go and read up on copyright, I can't keep explaining it to you all day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Try explaining it to yourself all day then. I've got my lawyer on the phone right now. Apparently you can't copyright a pin either. This is public domain. The item is mine, the camera is mine. You need to go read up on copyright before deleting any more images. --Flans44 23:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want it reviewed, please take it to WP:DRV. As I said in my deletion summary, I wouldn't mind restoring it if a good case under fair use and our criteria for non-free content can be made for it. That basically means: if the article were made to contain some substantial, sourced discussion of these insignia, as it seemed to do for the others. In that case, no problem. But I maintain it doesn't work as a "self-made" image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Now you are changing the topic of discussion. What does discussion of the picture in the article have to do with copyright? I don't have the time or know-how for all of this appeals junk. I am just trying to make a contribution for the article. There was a drawing of the image for YEARS in the article in the exact same place and I replaced it with an actual image. There was never a problem with the drawing or anyone understanding what it was there for. It should not have been taken off for copyright violations in the first place. If you don't like that there isn't any discussion of it that is another story. The whole article is based on Starfleet insignia and that IS the Starfleet insignia during the movie era! --Flans44 23:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking back at the history of the article I see that there IS in fact discussion of what the pin is. It was clearly stated that this is the Starfleet insignia of the late 23rd century! --Flans44 23:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring between Macgruder and Masonfamily on Liancourt Rocks

Hello, Fut.Perf. It appears that Macgruder (talk · contribs) and Masonfamily (talk · contribs) made edit wars on a caption of some image as reverting twice or third. Macgruder first reverted total 4 times) [15][16][17][18]] and Masonfamily reverted also 3 times (though he alleged that his last one is a comprised version)[19][20][21].

This were occurred just within one and half hour, and they broke 1RR, and other ArbCom rules. (the talk page is for discussion not for a ground to just revert other's edit and making personal attacks). Their conflicts still are ongoing on the page, and Macgruder's reverts constitutes 3RR, so well, your attention is needed.--Caspian blue (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I would bring this to your attention

User:Turkish Flame has not listened to anything on his talkpage and is still moving Bi-lateral relations pages. Also should these be systematically moved back? ARBAY TALKies 11:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jingiby: A drama part II

Hello Future, I was wondering if User:Jingiby has violated the 3RR] rule on Wikipedia? Mactruth (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia as whole?--Laveol ^T 08:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Shit. He certainly broke it on 25 August (when I didn't have the energy to look into it), and his current editing may well be seen as a continuation of the same contentious editing pattern. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Btw - is this allowed on a user page? --Laveol ^T 08:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay guys, having looked into the flags page history a bit more, I think the best outcome will be to put all the participants in the 20-27 August revert war on a revert parole. As far as I can see, that's at least Mactruth, Cukiger, Jingiby and Laveol. Cukiger also clearly broke 3RR on 25/26 August. I haven't counted the others, but they were all obviously revert-warring wildly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo_Liberation_Army#RfC:_Should_the_information_from_Human_Rights_Watch_report_be_included_in_this_article

Hi! Please look there. Imho it's the time to semi-protect the article. Alæxis_¿question? 09:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can an account be deleted?

What's the procedure? --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not. User pages can of course be deleted, but an account itself can only be renamed (at WP:CHU), never deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Katze

Thank you for the nomination.[22] Jingby (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Historic image FURs

I've started reviewing these. Could we discuss this at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Historic fur list? Also, could you look at Image:Qu&DoE Wedding.png and work out why the image names aren't displaying properly there? Also, deprecation was mentioned, but that was done for Template:Non-free unsure, and one of the things that people have put off for ages is a review of the images in Category:Public domain unless fair use images. I made a list once but never did anything with it. The trouble there is that some of the images may well be public domain, but no-one is really sure. Carcharoth (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, your help is appreciated. I think I've fixed the article name links. By "deprecation", I basically just meant we don't want to encourage uploaders to add the template to yet more images at this moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm going to dump the list in User:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries and then use "preview" to view a gallery of the images. Visually, some will stand out as obvious no-nos, or ones needing further investigation. Some have already had IfDs. I looked at the images that had talk pages and spotted one IfD notice. Is there a way to scan the history of the images on a list and work out which ones have been discussed before at IfD or tagged with speedies or whatnot? Ditto for the image logs as regards deletion and recreation (happens sometimes). Carcharoth (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. Have a look at this. I think, at the time (back in February), there were 1070 images in non-free historic. So about 75% have been deleted, just to put the numbers in perspective. :-) Also, those numbers seem manageable when compared to the numbers in the larger non-free categories, but that is not really an argument for avoid the work needed to clean stuff up, so I'll go back to reviewing the images. Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, ignore the "75% deleted" comment, I got Category:Non-free historic images (populated with Template:Non-free historic image), confused with Template:Historic fur, which is a smaller number of pictures (the ~250 you mentioned). I think the former is an upload template, and the latter is a FUR template. But the same problems apply. Carcharoth (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at SunriseTemplate:Highrfc-loop]], where you may want to participate. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)