User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Future Perfect at Sunrise is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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

Sock

You recently block Stanovc (talk · contribs), and he reemerged like Cicavica (talk · contribs).On Commons already uploaded image like own work, which is disputed as you see image... Like previous sock, username is geographical name, this time of mountain Čičavica. --Tadija^speaks 15:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bletaja (talk · contribs) is also a sock of Stanovc. --Local hero ^talk 16:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What's the policy if a sock enters valid references: do we still take out contributions? It seems like Stanovc has Neritan Ceka's book, because he keeps referencing from that. --Sulmues ^(talk) 22:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to take full responsibility for the correctness of an edit, you may chose to reinstate a sock's edit. However, please be careful about fact checking. I don't know that book by N. Ceka says, but the sock was also ostensibly citing a paper by Kapetanopoulos, and that paper happens to say something diametrically opposite to what he claimed. Not Illyrian, no kingdom, nothing. What Stanovc has been doing here is brazen-faced source falsification, so I wouldn't accept anything at all at face value from him, without having somebody trustworthy check every single reference. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. Stanovc has been little communicative with me, so I am not going to take any responsibility for his edits. I was about to AGF him, but people who are little communicative do wrong only to themselves and the articles they sometimes claim to contribute to. I would behave the same way if I were you. Best. --Sulmues ^(talk) 22:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, IIRC I never saw him use a talkpage/communicate; maybe he doesn't know how to. Cheers. — Kedaditalk 23:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

I am sorry, but I constantly disagree with you. I certainly do not "Canvassing" as you say. I always notify fellow editors for Greek related articles as I have many times notify you also! Their contribution is valuable and needed! Besides the decision about an article is made by many editors not by you and me. You haven't realise that I do not promote nationalist views but I am against that practise. To consider that Zalongo dance is a part of Albanian history (an Albanian tragedy I assume) is highly Pov and certainly a product of modern Albanian nationalism. To consider also the Arvanite/Souliote as Albanians while they self-determined as Greeks is exactly the same as considering modern Macedonians as Bulgarians. I am wiling though to continue to try to communicate with you and I will keep notifing you for article (among other editors) although I know we have almost opposite views.Seleukosa (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you here, but Seleucosa: weren't you the one to enter the sentence that it made an impact in Albanian history and then you added {{cn}} [3]? Until you edited the article no one claimed that the event had relevant impact in the Albanian history, just that it is part of the Greeks and Albanians' history. So please don't create inexisting problems but take it more easily. Besides what Albanian nationalism do you claim if the only Albanian source is from 1962 and it is RS? user:Alexikoua is a good wikipedian with whom I often collaborate on Epirus topics, you may want to drop him a line. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Guildenrich: Beserk [[4]]

Seems our friend Guildenrich is again active (Even his name is inspired by Germanick mythology again). A quick look at his contribution makes it more than clear that he is a sockpuppet: especially when he pumps in Markos Botsaris, supporting the 'Albanian side'.Alexikoua (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought too that he might an old user but I couldn't say whose sock he could be if he is a sock, so Alexikoua should start a SPI.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things are too obvious, what's surprising is that he doesn't hide his tracks. Also the last 2 1/2 months after S. Maximus sockban he created lot of disruption with his ips.Alexikoua (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obvious and if he really is Guildenrich the CU will confirm it like it confirmed KengaJone. Btw I had asked from a checkuser to CU him but my request was rejected because of insufficient evidence.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I bet that his block is a matter of days, considered he will continue to create the typical mess on the same topics.Alexikoua (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Guildenrich style disruption is still active [[5]] [[6]].Alexikoua (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice regarding AE

Hi, I was wondering if you could give me some advice regarding the article Croatian language.

A quick summary: this article has been subject to a slow but longstanding edit-war with two editors and numerous IPs repeatedly reverting to an old version in order to remove mentions of Serbo-Croatian, but which also removes several correctly placed tags [7] and now subsequent corrections to the grammar and poor English [8]. The removal of the material was rejected in extensive discussion on the talk page, where editors had to endure such personal attacks as this. Reversions are now occurring with no further discussion.

The recent edits of the two editors now reverting, Mir Harven (talk · contribs) and Croq (talk · contribs), have been almost entirely to this dispute or the closely related one at Serbo-Croatian language. Other related disputes have also occurred in recent months at articles such as Croatian grammar, Serbo-Croatian grammar, etc. One administrator, User:Kwamikagami has been involved in trying to keep order at these articles, but it is clear this this is not sufficient.

Am I right in thinking that this behaviour on articles in this topic area falls under the remedies of both WP:ARBMAC and WP:DIGWUREN? If so, which is more applicable and what is the correct procedure for going about using them to improve the situation at these articles?

Thanks and best wishes, Knepflerle (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I've opened a request for modification of the prior sanction at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#William_M._Connolley_comment_editing_restriction_modification. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi. How are you ? I've formed deletion request for the first time (in English Wikipedia). When you have plenty of time, please check technical problems. Thank you. Have a nice vacation. Takabeg (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring during an RfC

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Talk:Markos_Botsaris#RFC.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. I mentioned your name there. Could you please help stop disruption of Beserk, Athenean, and Alexikoua? An RfC stays for 30 days, shouldn't we all wait till it's over to make edits? --Sulmues ^(talk) 13:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement at Macedonians (ethnic group)

Hey. I see your travelling but I'm still letting you know about the discussion going on here because you are the one Balkan-related articles editor to whom everyone listens. So, if you're at all available, let us know what you think there. --Local hero ^talk 19:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borshi please

Hi again, I today created Borsh and then realized that the page Borshi, which is grammatically incorrect, already existed, so I merged the contents of Borshi into Borsh. At this point, could you please delete page Borshi and keep Borsh since they are duplicates? --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, redirected Borshi to Borsh. Thanks. --Sulmues ^(talk) 02:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or simply use {{delete}}. Cheers. — Kedaditalk 07:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Victory Parade

Thank you for your work on this article. Unfortunately it seems that after a period of stability one of the participants in the edit war which led to the need for your help, Chumchum7, has returned to the article and restarted 'work'. This edit claims that Britain shifted diplomatic recognition from "the pro-democracy Poles" towards the "totalitarian control" of the "new communist-dominated Provisional Government of National Unity" (Communists were actually the minority in that government). This is now the fourth time that Chumchum7 has made changes to your version (none with any prior discussion). The concise 328 word single paragraph which you created has now become a 400+ word three-paragraph section. We now have 420 words about the 'Polish issue' and 460 words about everything else connected with the victory parade combined! Isn't that a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT? What can be done about this? Perhaps failing to ban one side in an edit war was not the best of decisions.... Varsovian (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Greek history proposal

Hello Fut! I hope you have some pleasant vacations. When you have time, please take a look at a proposal I have tabled a proposal on a restructuring of coverage of modern Greek history in Wikipedia. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 17:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image problem

Would like a verification here: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Image_in_prep_2_non-free — Rlevse • Talk • 10:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I've just noticed that you blocked | on the 1 August. Kavs didn't realise he was blocked until the 17 August, and made an appeal on his talk page. He forgot to use the {{unblock}} template, but however I've added it for him now.

Anyway I ask you to seriously consider unblocking this user. Yes, I see that he has uploaded copyrighted images on many occasions, however he has never blocked temporarily before as a warning. Therefore it is quite likely that this user didn't realise the consequences of his behaviour.

This user has contributed greatly to Wikipedia, and without him many aviation articles will fall apart. Thanks, Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]