User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Archives

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

User:Bertport

Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Since you blocked twice my access to English wiki, I have no choice but contact you anonymously. Firstly, I want to express my deepest regret and disaffection for the two blockages. How could people jump to a judgement only by listening to one side's words? Don't you know the villain always sues his victim before he himself is prosecuted. It's User:Bertport who made the very first revert [1] at 00:19, 19 February 2010 while I, mainly with User:Clemensmarabu, had been contributing days to the article Tibet. I never see he does any constructive edit but only undoes others' contributions or stealthily stuffs his biased words.

I waited one week to finally edit the article, if you please have a look at what content is restored [2], you'll tell at once good from bad. Both sides' opinions are presented and historical events are scholarly argued, thus I wonder where come from the courage of Bertport to revert such an edit and his boldness to accuse others anticipately. Regards. -- LaGrandefr

Watch out

See this. Not another interest party flood. Just a heads up ;) Michi

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Jéské Couriano's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

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

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

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

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

Menikure

Comment on your observation

Of course, the "point violation" here is that Russavia is making the point that nobody, including the person he was "interacting with", seemed to have been bothered by his edits and that they are not objectively disruptive. As a matter of principle, in an issue like a no-interaction ban, I'd go by the principle of nemo iudex sine actore: sanctions are warranted only if the person who the sanction was supposedly meant to protect has actually complained, or at least there is indication they felt offended/annoyed or whatever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like you to note that I explicitly refused to be Russavia's policeman regarding his offensive relitigation of EEML as part of his comments supportive of Miacek. Don't take that to mean I'm not furious. Do take that to mean that coming up on 7 months of my topic ban there are editors who believe we can behave better and editors who have yet to demonstrate the same. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For your comments on that "Climategate" image. I've already explained the NFCC issues, as have others; I'm afraid this isn't so much an example of people not informing themselves as of people being in denial about what NFCC requires. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Climategate

Your accusation[3] is itself a disruption. If you have a problem with me, please take it up on my talk page. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you watching what's going on at Dogmeat, not to mention Korean Cusine?

Well? After your Hkwon ban, how do you feel about it, and what, if anything, are you planning to do about it? I see you as indirectly responsible, Hkwon was so exasperated by this type of thing that he did what he did, which was wrong, I suppose, but now that he's gone who's going to balance out the situation with the Koreans who take the equal but opposite approach? The system is out of balance because you took away one side of it, as Alison and I are not Korean we can't be as effective for complicated but not too hard to understand reasons. Please do something. Chrisrus (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your tone is not of a sort that would make me particularly enthusiastic to come to your help. No, I am not continuously observing whatever is going on on those two articles. If you have something particular to complain about, please be specific. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine. If you did take a look, you might see the ramifications and damage to Wikipedia that can happen when loose cannon adminstators go around not following procedure and rashly banning people without being privvy to all the background and never bothering to get any input and then walking away and leaving a filthy mess and not even bothering to look back and see the results of their actions. Chrisrus (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Come back here once you have something constructive to say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Dodona

I added this sentence [4] then this one

[5] based on this source [6] and then Athenean removed the Paleo-Balkan wording and moved it below despite chronological arrangement. Now he's telling me that somehow my edits are the same and he's suggesting that because of that one should go. I'm also trying to convince him that obviously the source when mentioning southern and northern tribes refers to northern Paleo-Balkan(Illyrians, Thracians) and southern ones(Greeks). This is becoming a discussion with too many or arguments, so could you please once again step in and offer your opinion regardless of its content here oder here.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian language and User:Windyhead

This guy is like a small fly in the soup. You want to ignore him, but you can't quite dig him out with your spoon and he just keeps buzzing and wiggling around. --Taivo (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused

Future, I've received your message [7].
You've said "Your recent articles such as Defense of Krk airport and Battle of Gospić are highly non-neutral in tone and content".
Can you, please, be more precise? You'll make it easier for me.
Please, assume good faith.
I've tried to use as much as possible precise words to avoid negative etiquetting of the whole communities, but to point to the perpetrators.
So, where do you see non-neutral elements (highly non-neutral????!!) in those articles? Which sentences?
I've referred to the sources I've listed on the bottom of the page.
If you find any line doubtful, please, add {{fact}}.
I've been working so with others here for years, and it worked fine for all involved sides.
Grammar incorrect? Noone's perfect. I try my best, someone always corrects my errors.
I correct others, others correct me.
That's what makes this project as cooperation. Kubura (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hkwon

Do you think you should review your actions here, in terms of the timing of the block you have imposed? Conceded his edits were sanctionable, but the topic ban which you attempted to impose clearly did not gain community support. The block which you then imposed was in fact implemented four days after his last edit, and I suspect that if it were necessary to defend this block you would find it difficult to do so. I have not unblocked (although I considered it) but it might be a sensible approach if you were to reconsider and start over with a level one warning. Not trying to interfere, but his unblock request and comments about it are attracting some attention. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I hadn't actually seen he had made an unblock request. Will have a look. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on his page. If you feel strongly that the block lacks consensus or backing in policy, feel free to overturn and no hard feelings. However, personally I'd still prefer some conditions. I don't think a "back to level 1" warning would have been appropriate here, as he had two prior blocks on related problems during the last month alone. Thanks for your collegial approach to this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I think that there are two sides to the discussion, and I will personally just let the block take its course. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Beat me to it

I was about to close down the discussion myself.--*Kat* (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Better?

Where silly little Not-Much-Future-Left?

[Darkly ] "Better", huh? Would you like to discuss that with my fiercely loyal pet monster ? Bishonen | talk 17:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC).

(pausing) - I wonder if we should generalize WP:NLT into WP:No Monster Threats. Lawyers are a form of monster... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Being threatened with a projectile-vomiting monster has got to count as cruel and unusual punishment, surely? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

[Zilla stuffs the little Chris in her pocket, pats him down firmly. Listens to tiny yelps from pocket. Smiles benevolently, showing her gleaming teeth. Even Bishonen is a little frightened. ] Down, Zilla! Stop patting the nice man! That's enough! Bishonen | talk 20:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC).

O dear. I don't suppose my little frightened penguin will placate the mighty zilla easily. But what about the teddybear? You see, it has already lived through so much past and is still so present, I'm sure it has more future than 'zilla seems to imply. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Zilla always had a soft spot for the little This User Is Afraid. Tenderly gathers the penguin and the teddy into her pocket and leaves several fishapod plushies in their place. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC).

Thank You

24 hours of rest at Ukrainian language from User:Windyhead. Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Windyhead block

I understand where you're coming from, but would a final warning on that have been a bit less BITEy? It's not clear that they had been warned formally before other than 3RR issues in the past. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

hmm, I'm not sure "bite" applies to editors who've been around as long as this one, and who have had previous edit-warring warnings. He knew perfectly well that his actions were being perceived as hostile and disruptive, he got a formal warning from Taivo himself earlier today and continued with several further hostile edits afterwards. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Extenze < Viagra < Cialis < Fleshlight

I was following the conversation on Lar's talk page and would like to share my thoughts a bit (hope you don't mind). First off, I don't think you are biased, perhaps Lar is privy to information I am not, but I have seen you warn people on both sides of the issue - maybe I am simply being ignorant here. Second, I don't think Lar is biased either, but I also understand that it is a very natural, perhaps inevitable, reaction to respond to extremism with extremism. Has Lar done this? Yeah, I think he'd probably admit to being more acidic than usual and I suspect he will detox from the area after the Arbcom proceedings are over. I'm guilty of this as well.

I think a problem, probably in all contentious areas, is that people tend to make snap judgments. No side on any debate is going to be right 100% of the time, but if an admin shows up when one side is correct they may tend to dismiss the other side forevermore. It is difficult to find admins that can walk that fine line without crossing over to one side, but generally I think Lar has done a good job. I just hope that you and Lar can find a way to see eye to eye on things a bit more and hopefully by understanding how people react to extremism you can both avoid that pitfall and lend a friendly hand to those teetering on the edge. Happy admining. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I happen to find this subject title offensive considering it involves a living person. TGL: Can you please refactor this discussion's name? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? That's offensive? That's more like a compliment! Anyway I've deleted it, but it really was supposed to be tongue in cheek. Perhaps it'd be less offensive if I replaced it with a dead person? ;) TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your debate is amusing, especially since I still have no idea what either the original or the new heading is supposed to mean ;-) But I thank you for your thoughts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Korea under Japanese rule

There is a disagreement whether a translation of the native name belongs conventional_long_name field in Template:Infobox former country. As you had participated in the discussion with similar topic in the past, I'd like to ask your participation. Thank you. --Kusunose 04:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved discussion

(Moved from User talk:Lar)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The edit-warring complaint was about a completely separate page, see this diff, at Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, with ChrisO complaining here after Minor4th brought up the same editing pattern[8][9] as in the Virginia article. The diff I cited originally had nothing to do with the article you referred to, but to the Monckton article, as is clearly shown in the diff. As to the purported sock, the evidence consists of "The usual" and there has not been a check-user completed. If this is a new user, they may have been fed up enough to just walk away. If it is a sock, then by all means, they should be blocked, but blocking someone based on "The usual" is by no means providing any useful evidence of sock-puppetry, and the problem with the activist faction is that anyone that disagrees is subject to being sent to an SPI. The supposed sock in this case removed a sentence that was unsupported by a ref, and the very first response by ChrisO was that it was an obvious Scibaby sock. How is it obvious from one edit that the user was a sock? As far as diff #1, that is obviously an uncivil remark, stating that someone has less than a high school education. It is blatant. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 14:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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

I wasn't trying to get anyone sanctioned and my concrete objection was that Chris reverted 7 times. I was not the only one who complained either -- and the reason my shrill objections were being made about Chris is because it was Chris who was reverting like a madman and making edits at the speed of light when the article had just come off protection. Are you really going to say that editing was not appropriate? It's why the article got protected again. A neutral editor dealt with the situation by protecting the article again -- my accusation as indeed not false at all. It was 7 reverts. Diffs [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. [15]. [16], [17] Ok, actually it was 8 reverts and that is not including the one BLP revert. Minor4th 20:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What part of "Reverts of banned users don't count, as you well know" is unclear? And I thought we were making a fresh start? "I... apologize as well for not assuming good faith in your actions. I have decided to make a more concerted effort to assume good faith on your part and see if that helps the situation." [18] That didn't last long, did it? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Heh, no problem. BTW, the explanation for the "sunrise" is here [19]. Oh and, I only noticed afterwards that Lar had been referring to you as "she", when I'd been using "he" all the time, so sorry if that was wrong too? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it has to be said. If Marknutley does not know enough about a subject to be able to contribute effectively he should either (a) educate himself about it or (b) stay out of it. The problem is that either of those outcomes requires him to be aware that he is not contributing effectively. It's for just this reason that I avoid editing articles where I don't know anything about the subject matter. I'm well aware that I'm not competent to contribute to them. There's a famous learning model (see [20]) which I think is relevant in this sort of situation. In the language of that model, Marknutley seems to be at the stage of "unconscious incompetence" in relation to historical knowledge. If he becomes aware of this, he can get to the stage of conscious incompetence. This is the stage I'm at with topics I don't know enough about to be able to contribute competently. I assume by default that I'm consciously incompetent in a new topic area, unless it happens to be one I'm already familiar with. Mark seems to assume competence in all topic areas, which is why he makes ridiculous howlers like the one I pointed out above. If Mark wants to be able to do competent editing on such topics, he needs to study it so that he can achieve conscious competence and ultimately, hopefully, unconscious competence. The whole point of an RfC is to point out where an editor is failing; by doing so, he has a chance to remedy the problem. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

AE enforcement request

Hi, I've left a reply on the AE page regarding your comment and explaining why the report has been made. Varsovian (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalized articles

Dear FPaS, you might have noticed the current vandalizing efforts targeted at the established and stable versions of Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising and Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki. Best, Apcbg (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the heads-up. I saw something light up on my watchlist but didn't look much into it. If you need an admin to deal with it, you'll need to find somebody else please – unfortunately, I'm still prevented by Arbcom of taking any action myself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response; sorry I didn't realize that. I was just about to write that if anything the situation got worse thanks to the ill-advised action by SarekOfVulcan when I saw your note in his talk page :-) Seriously, why should he be wasting our time? Best, Apcbg (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, he's doing his job properly. This won't be difficult to sort out, and there's no hurry. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your intervention. Best, Apcbg (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, when I asked for an "independent editor", I didn't mean to imply that I excluded you from the category! I just wanted somebody without a dog in the fight to evaluate the sourcing, which you've done admirably. If you feel you can make the call on the title as it currently stands, feel free to move it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Except that if I moved now over your protection, I'd be technically breaking an arbcom ruling, so perhaps you could oblige? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'll leave the protection in force for now, just in case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

SPI

You might find this [21] interesting. Cheers, Athenean (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Head of German state government debate

Sorry to bother you with this issue again. You have closed the debate, stating that it should not be reopened. However, if a debate has achieved no consensus, it might well be appropriate to offer more factual information, so that consensus can eventually emerge. I have been checking the English websites of German state governments (seven of which use Minister-President, two use Prime minister, one uses Premier, with three states on which I haven't found pertinent information, and three city states who are governed by mayors). In my view, there should be a place to communicate this information.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not prohibiting anybody from further discussion. It just seemed to me that (1) that particular polling process was doomed to remain stuck, (2) people were generally attributing too much importance to the issue (happens often when people get into a disagreement that is objectively not very important but somehow sparks some people's intellectual curiosity in arguing over it), and (3) levels of unfriendliness were at a level that suggested everybody would profit from a time out. It's up to you, really. As long as nobody starts edit-warring or (worse) move-warring again. As for the findings you mention, if I may give you my personal opinion for a moment, it sounds rather like adding to the general impression that usage is simply variable and undetermined, making the whole discussion moot rather than adding a new decisive argument to it. I wouldn't personally place much value on an argument that each state government's individual decisions (or their website translators) should decide our usage on an individual per-state basis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and your comments! Maybe it's best to wait for a while and come back to the issue in three or four weeks.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Mention

Howdy. Just an FYI I've mentioned you in passing [22] thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Old vandalism

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

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

Hi, not sure about the urrecht, but I'm sure you're right about the old vandalism. Sigh. BTW, does a dictionary definition of urrecht help? [23] Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment noted

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

If you're in the mood

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