User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Archives

Note: If you leave a message here I will usually respond here.

Re-VibhintaVerma.jpg image Problem

Hi, The vibhinta verma image has not yet published anywhere online, It is perfectly safe to use it on Wikipedia. There will be no copyright issue at all. and there will be no problem in future regarding copyright. Candicell

Steve Hodges

Hi, Steve Hodges gave permission for his official photo to be used on Wikipedia the day before the election. He lost the special election for congress so I doubt that we will have a photo of him available again. The note that he gave his permission to use the photo was in the boxes under the photo and on the talk page. without the one picture of him, the special congressional election for MO_08 at Wikipedia looks very biased for the man elected. I admit that I have trouble trolling through the wp jargon and do not understand all the image permissions, but it seems that to keep the unbiased nature of wp and because he sent written permission, the photo of Steve Hodges for Congress 2013 should be returned to Wikipedia, but by somebody with a greater understanding of wp permissions...like you perhaps. thank you!

Source?

Hello I want to know the source of the file File:Faizul Latif Chowdhury.jpg uploaded by you. Thanks. The Legend of Zorro 21:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really upload it. I just reverted it to a previous version after it had been vandalized. The original uploader was Noorelahi (talk · contribs), who claimed it was his own. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops my mistake. I saw your name in the top and assumed you uploaded it. By the way this image seems very problematic to me. The Legend of Zorro 21:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Recordstraight83

Back in April, you blocked User:Recordstraight83 for block evasion. User:DoRD has recently turned up a bunch of accounts that are all socks. I've been marking them with User:JohnnyOrgseed as the master, but I see now that User:Recordstraight83 is older. Do you happen to remember who the master for Recordstraight83 is? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really remember now. It was a messy situation with many accounts making apparently similar tendentious edits over a longish period, and I really don't remember which other account or IPs I had in mind as the sockmaster for this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks anyways. It doesn't particularly matter, but I figured I'd link them up if the connection were known. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unfair_and_biased_topic_ban_imposed. Thank you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

AS 50 & AWM 338 Images Deleted

Hey, I need to understand what exactly the problem is with these images? The owner gave me the right to freely make them available, I submitted the written permissions, went through the correct procedures and yet still they were deleted, what exactly is going on? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Accuracy_International_AWM_338.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=File:The_Accuracy_International_AS-50.jpg thanks in advance Twobells 11:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

When you uploaded File:The_Accuracy_International_AS-50.jpg here on en-wp in January, you declared it as non-free, and I deleted it on that basis, as it clearly didn't meet the non-replaceability criterion of our WP:NFCC rules. You also said you had "permission" from the rights holder, but according to what you said that was just a permission for use here on Wikipedia, and not a fully free license for free re-use elsewhere, so it wasn't sufficient for us. For the other file, en:File:Accuracy_International_AWM_338.jpg, an OTRS statement was submitted when it was re-uploaded by User:Francis Flinch some time later, both here and on Commons (I suppose that was also you, under a different account name?). At that time, I deleted it here simply because it was redundant to the copy on Commons, but before that happened, an OTRS volunteer (User:VernoWhitney) had noted that the OTRS statement was not yet sufficient, and that's also the reason cited by the deleting admin on Commons (commons:User:HJ Mitchell). I can't say what in the OTRS statement was problematic, as I don't myself have access to that correspondence, but I'd expect the OTRS volunteers should have explained it to you at the time. Probably the statement didn't contain clear enough evidence that the permission was meant to cover free re-use for all purposes and not just use on Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am by no means a copyright expert and will not quickly judge any editor regarding that subject, but in defence of User:Twobells I can assure you that Twobells did not spoof my account. I just tried to help. It is not easy for a normal editor (like me) to judge what is appropriate or not regarding OTRS and uploading such information correctly, so please lets assume good faith instead of jumping to all kinds of exciting assumptions and conclusions.--Francis Flinch (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for input in drafting potential guidelines

Hi. There are, at present, no particular clear guidelines for religious material here, or, for that matter, guidelines for how to deal with ideas in general, particularly those ideas which might be accepted as true by individuals of a given religious, political, or scientific stance. There have been attempts in the past to draft such guidelines, but they have quickly been derailed. I am dropping this note on the talk pages of a number of editors who I believe have some interest in these topics, such as yourself, and asking them to review the material at User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion and perhaps take part in an effort to decide what should be covered in such guidelines, should they be determined useful, and what phrasing should be used. I would be honored to have your input. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

See also this. Bishonen | talk 12:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC).

DS

Here me out:

You claim:

The claim that I somehow have an ongoing dispute with Mrt is ridiculous. I do consider myself "involved" with his main opponent though, as I had the bad luck that Darkness Shines at some point chose to meddle in a content dispute I had with another, unrelated editor some time ago. This is the only reason I have not also sanctioned Darkness Shines – who I otherwise consider at least equally to blame for this whole situation.

Would you mind filing an AE Case against Darkness Shines? Or would you mind just banning him since that dispute you had with DS is past and WP:INVOLVED is not eternally valid in such cases. Let me put it this way, I think you're as uninvolved with DS as you're with me. You know that I didn't misrepresent anything. That edit was well-sourced, you banned me based on the probable miscalculation of the weight of a "deposition" in a good-faith edit. You really ought to block him too. With the absence of any other editor, the article's are turning into his personal fiefdom. Mr T^(Talk?) 13:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:AE#Senkaku Islands

Hello FP. Your topic ban of User:SummerRat has been mentioned in this AE discussion. Since an admin is now proposing to close this AE complaint with bans of User:Oda Mari and User:Lvhis your input would be helpful. It's hard for me to disagree with the additional bans but I'm not too familiar with the background of this case, and am wondering if there is enough rationale provided. If you are familiar with all three editors then perhaps you have an opinion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Abkhazia issues

Hi! Could you take a look at the discussion here? Since the discussion is going nowhere, 3rr report has been ignored and it has already spilled into insults at my talk, I'm kind of at a loss what to do now. Alæxis_¿question? 19:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Future Perfect at Sunrise, dein bekannter Feind hat gerade auf Commons massivst mittels multi-IP zugeschlagen. Weit über 100 Edits mussten revertiert und zudem versteckt werden. Angesichts dieser Drohung in der Edit-Summary[1][2], die ich aus forensischen Gründen momentan noch so belassen habe, solltest du event. rechtliche Schritte erwägen (oder entsprechenden Support bei WMF einholen). --Túrelio (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ja, danke für den Hinweis, auf anderen Wikis ist er auch wieder unterwegs. Wahrscheinlich muss ich wirklich mal anfangen, solche Links systematisch zu sammeln. Lass deshalb ruhig mal ein paar davon offen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hier der zugehörige thread samt Links. --Túrelio (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Request to reconsider your ban

Hi, Fut.perf would you please reconsider your ban? Please allow me to explain my position. And if it's not too much would you explicate your rationale behind imposing the ban? So that I may correct my editing pattern and in the future avoid getting banned again over similar concerns? I really want to have a discussion. I really do. I think the ban should not seem punitive in nature. I am not saying it seems punitive now but yeah I admit I was upset for quite some time over this ban, now, I think, I am not so upset any more I have managed to take it in. So, would you help me understand the faults? Mr T^(Talk?) 07:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I have made my concerns about your editing very clear, several times, both in explaining the ban and previously when I warned you. Others have done the same. Your repeated claims that you don't understand these reasons don't make the situation better. You have been editing tendentiously, and if you are unable to recognize how and why your edits have been tendentious, then that's unfortunately only one more reason to keep you restricted from editing in this area. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We must agree that while talking about DUE and UNDUE weight we are essentially treading on the domain of personal opinions and the subjects I volunteer to edit are already very emotive and controversial, hence it is very hard to not let the decisions be clouded by emotion. Believe me I am telling you I, in good-faith, miscalculated the weight of that statement of the witness.

That article was, and still is, about a highly emotive topic. It is fairly likely that people will see tendentiousness in almost every change in the content. And it's very hard for any editor to assess the neutrality of the edits he or others perform. In this scenario would you be kind enough to reconsider your ban? Why are you precluding the possibility of good faith on my part?

• Okay, I am going to explain the issue here as I see it (pardon my candour),

The political articles I recently edited are Narendra Modi, 2002 Gujarat violence, Godhra train burning, etc. When I glanced over the edits in these articles and proposals/demands on their talks, I learnt that bias is absolutely rife in those pages and that's why I thought the bar for meeting "tendentious editing" must be very, very high and I saw that sanctions are enforced sparingly and leniently. Also when I, as a beginner, saw some of the editors do it again and again with impunity, it only reinforced my idea that the leniency is prevalent in these article. The applicability of guidelines became blurry because of the inaction, leniency of some admins. You cannot really blame me for following suit especially because those before me were not banned at the right time for committing worse contraventions. I have been watching this cat-and-mouse game for quite some time and now when I perform an edit, that is perhaps a tendentious edit, I am blocked banned right-away.
The thing is I never learnt what actually was inside the periphery of neutrality because of the lack of intervention and sometimes even acquiescence from the admins, you know? Please believe me, I am still learning how to navigate these murky waters. This ban is only making it even more confusing because I just cannot intellectualize the disparity I am seeing.

I am not saying others' misconduct or violation excuse my own. All I am saying is please understand my predicament and give me a chance. I am a reasonable guy and I am amenable to any well-founded, logical discussion. In fact you yourself may counsel me on how to avoid being perceived as a biased editor. I encourage you to trout me whenever you feel I am over-stepping any guideline. But please lift the ban and let me edit those articles, I promise I will try to be as neutral as humanly possible. Mr T^(Talk?) 14:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Mrt, you wouldn't know neutral if it hit you in the face. Worse, your excitability is exactly the sort of thing that turns the articled to which you refer into emotive messes. - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow what a constructive and informative reply, I am enlightened. This sort of commentary is what bothers me. Why do you pass judgements on me? I disagree with you but does that give you the right to vilify me this way? Why do you assume bad faith? Mr T^(Talk?) 14:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sitush, i know it sounds very cool, but you do realise that making snide remarks can never improve the situation? (refering to your first sentence) Even if you don't want to hear out Mrt anymore, you can ignore or remain silent, or best, provide constructive criticism. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 15:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Anir, my remarks may have been blunt but they were not snide. The situation will be improved by Mrt's absence from the topic area. They've had the constructive criticism previously and yet continue even now to argue the toss. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No sir, the remarks were pretty snide. You alluded to a disability.

"The situation will be improved by Mrt's absence from the topic area" - again a big claim and I feel it was not needed. Mr T^(Talk?) 17:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I was neither aware of an allusion nor aware that you have a disability. Nor does a disability somehow exempt you from displays of tendentiousness and POV that continue despite numerous attempts to explain the problems. For esample, there are autistic contributors who have been blocked because the unfortunate effect of their health on their editing was considered to be a net negative. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, can I have an uninterrupted discussion with FPAS if you don't mind? I don't think your comments are needed here. Mr T^(Talk?) 18:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Mrt, tendentious editing is not a matter of a single edit. A single edit isn't tendentious, as tendentiousness is a pattern. If you're debating the classification of a single edit, then you clearly don't understand Fut.Perf's reasoning. In addition, there is no differing set of bars for actions. If you're looking for a "periphery" of neutrality, you clearly don't understand what neutrality is. Editing neutrally means you're not trying to fit a certain point of view in. CMD (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you have fully understood my reasoning. "A single edit isn't tendentious, as tendentiousness is a pattern" - I am saying that pattern either doesn't exist or exists in everywhere in those articles. I am using tendentious as in "expressing a particular opinion or point of view, especially when many disagree with it". I am not saying that I am tendentious I am saying that edit could be perceived as tendentious.
"If you're looking for a "periphery" of neutrality" - I am not but it's not a dot either. And you do know that "neutrality" is a very complicated issue, right? I am looking for a range, if you will. Mr T^(Talk?) 17:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Tendentiousness isn't a pattern in articles, it's a pattern of an editor's actions. Your interpretation of it as "expressing a particular opinion or point of view, especially when many disagree with it" is incorrect, many editors do this without tendentious editing. Again, a single edit isn't perceived as tendentious, a pattern is tendentious. Neutrality as a principle isn't complicated at all. There's no "range" of neutrality, there's neutrality and trying to push a POV, whether subtly or overtly. If you feel you can't edit a subject neutrally, you shouldn't edit it. CMD (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me but from your comment it seems that any form of disagreement is a sign of tendentiousness. If think that "expressing a particular opinion or point of view, especially when many disagree with it" can be done without tendentious intentions then you actually agree with me.
"There's no "range" of neutrality" - I am saying that since absolute neutrality is pretty hard to attain and arguably impossible, there is a range of ways we can edit articles without always breaching the NPOV-policy. If you don't concur, then, hey, let's agree to disagree. Mr T^(Talk?) 18:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how my comment can be interpreted the way you are interpreting it. You're still completely misunderstanding tendentiousness. It's not about intentions; one doesn't usually aim to be tendentious. It's a pattern that emerges from actions. Whether or not absolute neutrality is impossible, if you're looking for the boundaries of neutrality, then you're very clearly not editing in a neutral manner. What it implies, and what other editors will see, is just a way to try and get a certain POV presented as prominently as possible (hence Sitush's comment above). Perhaps instead of being argumentative with those trying to advise you (an attitude which helps you not at all), you should try to take a break and think upon all the issues raised by multiple editors; try and see the issue from other sides rather than just arguing it from yours. Good luck, CMD (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Cmd is right, tendentiousness isnt about intentions, it isnt even about right or wrong, it is about what fellow editors perceive an editors editing. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Mt. T, FuP may not like the use of his page for this would you copy this discussion to your talk page leaving a talk back at each participant's page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• "It's a pattern that emerges from actions." - so what? One may perceive many patterns in my editing. Since when is an attempt to balance a POV claim regarded as POV itself? I try to balance articles that have certain types of biases. Why is that a bad thing? My point is when fellow editors themselves are sensitive to an emotional subject they can perceive any editors editing as tendentious. It's not that hard to grasp, is it? The conversation should focus on how that user's tendencies are causing disruption. Many keep on bringing up how I was advised about my tendentiousness (before ban? where?) and I was argumentative to the ones trying to advise me. Well just requesting someone to substantiate something which they alleged is not necessarily a sign of argumentativeness. Perhaps, CMD will disagree on this too. Allegations were levelled against me but nowhere were they elucidated or substantiated. Mr T^(Talk?) 06:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your tireless work on topics prone to neutrality problems. bobrayner (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)