You did not respond to my posting, just deleted the document, with no response or notification. Where is the copyright violation? Please correspond respectfully on this matter.

Archives

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

Hello,

I try to add external and neutral sources. Is this that which you wish?

Thank you for your answer,

Pouzols

Yes that's what I wanted to say, your first revision was bed, it looked like Vuk Brankovic belonged to the house of Nemanjic, and I wanted to say that his family had a prominent rol in the Nemanjic Serbia ( as in Victorian England or Capetian France= shorter form for the England in the time of queen Victoria or France in the time of the Capets ). Thanks for adding articles I often forget about them, useless things:) Clanedstino

I've finally finished a major expansion of the inner German border article - it's the 20th anniversary next month of the border being opened and the fall of the Berlin Wall. I'd be very grateful if you could have a look at the article and let me have any comments on how you think it could be improved. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user, whose block recently expired, has left a note for you (in Greek) in the form of an unblock request. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because i noticed on some articles that included historic tallest buildings, that they included the ethnic names. So i added the historic names, and not just german crap, to the articles. Then it was quickly reverted so i just layed off since people didnt seem to think it was a good idea. Can you please familiarize yourself with the LUCPOL situation. He created the article on MAUS about 4 years ago and he seems to be the only one editing it. I have posted many disscussions on his talk page, but im not sure i can understand his poor grasp of english, which by the way i try to correct on articles he has created (which exclusively deal with Silesian topics), and it quickly is reverted.-- Hroþberht (gespraec) 07:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He lied about one of the two english sources he added, well actually none of the english sources he added to that article say anything about MAUS. The one he lied about was supposedly a link to Eurostat, but was instead a link to a polish website entitled Urban Audit.org. He has labeled me a vandal twice in the past day on the same article in his edit summaries. All seven external links on MAUS are to Polish websites. All Seven sources are in Polish. There is a policy on this, stating the necessity for English sources. -- Hroþberht (gespraec) 07:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this last point is a misunderstanding: there is no policy against non-English sources. Non-English sources can be just as reliable as English ones. English ones are preferred where available, for practical reasons, but non-English ones are allowed wherever needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is someone supposed to identify and verify information in a source if its in an unintelligible language?

-- Hroþberht (gespraec) 07:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed how if someone even so much as edits one of the articles he created, he will quickly revert all changes. (example: [1] -- Hroþberht (gespraec) 07:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I come onto wikipedia today and this is the first thing i see:

• User talk:R9tgokunks#Your vandalisms again Four times in two days he calls me a vandal and my edits vandalism.

-- Hroþberht (gespraec) 20:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet again: [2]

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

Hello FP. You have commented on this article. Question: it uses Google search results, are these acceptable in-article references? If so, do you have a guideline link? Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite uncommon, to say the least. The whole thing strikes me as rather OR'ish. Of course, one might argue that the google books search result is just a shortcut to many actual, legitimate sources, which one could just as well quote separately. But as soon as there is some implication that these search results are somehow representative of different stances in scholarship, it becomes essentially an OR argument, especially if, as here, it appears coupled with a more or less self-made WP:SYNTH argument about how these different terms do or do not refer to essentially the same thing.

But in any case, this is just my outsider's 2c, and I do not really intend to start editing that article or engaging in the debates there. I'm basically still just watching this whole thing from the neutral-administrator perspective, just trying to figure out which parties are engaging in constructive sincere discussion in search of true NPOV and which do not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note its not Google search but the much more reliable Google Books, the point was to answer criticism that those terms don't exist. Instead of giving one example - which can be easily done (and added to current refs), I wanted to show that they are actually widely used (and none shows a clear dominance). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about this ref'ing issue at the Village Pump policy page. Further discussion is probably better held there or at the article talk page. Thx for reply, Novickas (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should've read the policy in detail before commenting on it (but read on...). Policies change. The section you were basing your argument on (I presume the "What vanishing is not" at WP:RTV), was new to me when I read it last week - and is quite new. In particular, it is still not present at meta:Right to vanish, and it was added to our RtV only in July 2008 (and I am pretty sure the last time I read it must have been before then). Further, I was basing my posts on what I've seen (an unfortunately biased sample, perhaps). Here's are two examples I am familiar with (those are not complains about those users, merely an illustration of what I've seen done (still) uncriticized by other admins): 1) User:Altenmann is former User:SemBubenny, in turn former User:Mikkalai (at least those are the incarnations I know). Mikka is also an administrator (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikkalai), but there is no information anywhere that he has changed names and is now Altenmann. Maybe that information is somewhere deep, deep in contribs history or RfUsernameChange - but overall, making a connections between Mikka and Altenmann is pretty hard. 2) In another example, User:Deacon of Pndapetzim changed his name from User:Calgacus and went to RfA under the new name. Yes, he disclosed the name change in RfAdm (although it is hardly stressed), and edit history of Calgacus userpage and its talk does point to Deacon's - but one can wonder how would his RfA turn out if it was under the old name (for example, I don't watch Calgacus userpage, but I do watch feed from new RfA; I'd have likely voted in his RfA if it appeared at my feed as RfA/Calgacus but at that point I had no idea Deacon was Calgacus and so I never realized an editor I have some opinions and experience with is taking RfA). Based on those two examples (and cursory reading of RtV years ago...) - I thought my recommendations were within policy and our customs. I stand corrected now; however I hardly see the reason to fuss much about my misunderstanding of (evolving) policy that was never acted upon, particularly where others have actually taken such (or similar) actions (and I am would be very surprised if the two examples I am familiar with are the only ones in this project - isn't the recent Law affair another illustration of how various people misinterpret RtV?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in your reasoning behind that close, with respect to this edit. Your close says "I am ruling that this image is in the PD." Your edit to the file says "But I might be wrong." I also note that you asked Stifle about his closure, and expressly said you would be uncomfortable with two opposite closures of apparently equal nature. Was there a reason you chose to do it anyway? ÷seresin 20:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's put it like this. I personally find the PD argument convincing, I seem to remember having read about this as being a commonly accepted argument somewhere previously too, and I'd say it's strong enough that in the absence of a clear legal refutation, and in light of the overall voting situation on that IFD, it makes the whole thing at least a "no consensus" keep. I'm open to be convinced of the opposite if anybody knows of an authoritative source showing that this is not a valid interpretation. In that case, we'd have to re-evaluate the whole thing on the basis of the fair use claim, which I find weak, but it's worth keeping the fair use argument around for later reference. As for the divergence with Stifle's closure, I talked with him, and he seemed of the opinion there was a better case for this image than for the other (though perhaps not for the exact reasons I'd find compelling); on the other hand he didn't seem inclined to reconsider his closure, and I don't care enough about it to go to DRV to challenge him about it, so unless somebody else goes there and challenges either mine or his, we'll probably have to live with the contradiction. I have no big stakes in this either way – you know I'm normally a deletionist hardliner when it comes to NFC things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FPaS, would it not come down to who was responsible for the operation of the video camera on which the subjects were captured? If the video camera is operated by a federal agency, such as the Department of Transportation, then it would be PD-US-gov. But if it is operated by a local government agency, then it may well indeed be protected by copyright, depending on whether state govt materials are PD or not. But of course, we can't have a situation where the image has both a NFCC rationale, plus a PD template at the same time. Thoughts on that? --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the argument was that nobody was actually "operating" the camera at all, in the sense of doing human creative work with it, because it just automatically recorded things without human intervention. No creativity = no copyright. That's in fact independent of the PD-USGov thing. As for the templates, I don't think the rationales do any harm, even if they are redundant as long as the PD claim is considered valid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am proud for your liquidating intervention there. dunno where the script things came from. keep it up. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You recommed me to ask AN[3], then 2 admins said premature.[4][5] So I obeyed their order like your order. Then I edited too difficult and too nationalitc articles for fulfill their demands as far as I could. And I also obeyed your order from 13:33, 21 January 2009. I handled many dispute without troubles. Please release the topic ban.--Bukubku (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He posted the same request on my page. I'm looking into it. Would appreciate your looking into it too. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing a sample of Bukubku's recent contributions, I'm afraid I can not support a lifting of the topic ban. Bukubku has been editing on highly charged ideological issues surrounding Japan's WWII past that are quite similar to the Korean-Japanese topics he was banned over. His recent edits to Manchukuo [6] and similar pages related to WWII and imperial Japan shows a continuing stance of promoting a clear ideological agenda. This user's goal on this project is POV advocacy, and we don't want yet more of that spilling back into the Japanese–Korean area. Moreover, it is also still true that Bukubku writes very poor English, and many of his edits clearly degrade article quality [7]. This wouldn't normally be such a big problem – we generally welcome non-native writers of English, and tolerate quite a lot of poor English on the way, on the grounds that if the content of the edits on the whole is productive other users will often be glad to correct the formal errors. However, one thing that people with poor English skills should not do is actively edit sensitive hotspots of POV disputes. Negotiating NPOV over such articles requires full active command of the subtleties of the English language both in the wording of article text and in talk page debate. People with English skills at Bukubku's level will generally not be a help in this process, especially not if they come to it with a potentially disruptive POV agenda. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, your comment. My first application time, Rlevse said to me like that few edits since Feb and even fewer outside his "home turf" of Japanese articles So I had to edit difficult issues like JK relations. Are there serious troubles about my editions except for poor English? Point out concretely my POV editions, please. And I talked in talke page. When you blocked me, my edition of Comfort women is not bad grammatically, and I cited from NYtimes. And I provieded for you many sources. In case Manchukuo, I cited from "Twilight in the Forbidden City". The book is very very famous. Please read the book without prejudice. And I didn't conceal Japanese bad things. Certainly, sometimes my editions were not good, however most of my edition is not POV.--Bukubku (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find the book at libraries, I will send you. I want you to read the book.--Bukubku (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Bukubku#Blocked — Rlevse • Talk • 18:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I know this situation is a bit of a mess and I'm sorry for causing it. I honestly believed that site's license allowed for using their content here, and I completely regret misinterpreting it. It was a mistake, but not a malicious one. And I will certainly never repeat it. However, let me be very clear that not one iota of their article on Gigurtu went into the one Dahn and I wrote. Yes, ER and I used largely the same sources. But I independently went to those books and worked directly from those sources myself. Given this, I would kindly ask that you restore the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, I'm quite sure you acted in good faith here, no problem about that. But as for not copying things in this particular article, I'm not very good at Romanian, but to me "Fiul al generalului Petre Gigurtu, a urmat şcoala primară şi gimnazială în oraşul natal, iar studiile liceale la Craiova. Urmează cursuri universitare la Academia de mine din Freiburg şi Charlottemburg, devenind după terminarea acestora inginer de mine. Între 1912 şi 1919, Gigurtu activează ca inspector industrial pe lângă Mnisterul Industriei şi Comerţului. Din calitatea sa de ofiţer, participă atât la Al Doilea Război Balcanic […]" looks decidedly similar to "Born in Turnu Severin to General Petre Gigurtu, he attended primary school and gymnasium in his native city, followed by high school in Craiova. He then went to Germany, pursuing secondary studies at the Freiberg Mining Academy and the Royal Technical College of Charlottenburg and becoming a mining engineer. From 1912 to 1916, he worked as an industrial inspector at the Romanian Ministry of Industry and Commerce.^[1] During the Second Balkan War in 1913, he was a sub-lieutenant ... " – Sorry, but either you copied from ER, or both you and ER copied from a third source; either way we have a problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm logging off and going to bed now; we can talk again tomorrow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly didn't use ER - indeed I didn't even look at their version until after I'd finished mine (and decided there was nothing there worth using). Yes, we both used Stelian Neagoe's work, which is written in a dry, factual tone (without verbs, in fact) - there aren't that many ways of saying he was the son of a general, went to school in Craiova and Germany, and fought in World War I. I can certainly try and reword some of that, but there's already some difference, and I don't know quite how much else could be changed without deviating from the source. See you tomorrow. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Future. I would like to see the article restored in its previous form, given that, in this case at least, the accusation of copyright infringement seems to be bogus - whatever it had started at, it had become something completely different, and, as Biruitorul says, the info that was alleged to closely resemble some other source appears to be dry facts. Even the samples that you cite above are far, far from identical. My own work (which unwittingly included some edits on the text already in there) was entirely lost in the process, and I don't believe my edits had in any way been the subject of any such discussion. I also know for a fact that at least part of Biruitorul's research on this subject was genuine - since it was from sources I had suggested he should use.

Now, I just want to make this comment before we close this matter - close it, because I really resent having to debate any matter with Radufan, even by proxy. The ER project, which apparently started with the frustration of some wikipedia editors that they can't protect their questionable contributions from genuine scrutiny (and obsesses over a fallacy according to which wikipedia is going commercial) includes, among others, former contributors who have made their mark on the Romanian wikipedia with one or both of the following: blatant, obscene, plagiarism of content copy-pasted (not adapted, not translated) from various sources; endorsing and preserving at least one neonazi propaganda outlet as a source for content. Much of this still lingers on the Romanian wiki project, and the users in question took their retreat before they could be held accountable for it (although not before, while still an admin, Radufan himself threatened to block me several times, blocked me once for a whole week, and harassed me repeatedly for bringing this to the community's attention; this even if he was - and still is - in a conflict of interest). Dahn (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, let me attempt to translate the ER fragment you cite above into English, and compare it with Biruitorul's text:

• "A son of general Petre Gigurtu, he attended primary school and gymnasium in his native city, and took high school studies in Craiova. He took university-level courses at the Freibug mining academy and in Charlottemburg, becoming a mining engineer upon graduation. Between 1912 and 1919, Gigurtu was employed as an industrial inspector by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. As an officer, he took part in both the Second Balkan War […]"

• "Born in Turnu Severin to General Petre Gigurtu, he attended primary school and gymnasium in his native city, followed by high school in Craiova. He then went to Germany, pursuing secondary studies at the Freiberg Mining Academy and the Royal Technical College of Charlottenburg and becoming a mining engineer. From 1912 to 1916, he worked as an industrial inspector at the Romanian Ministry of Industry and Commerce. During the Second Balkan War in 1913, he was a sub-lieutenant ... "

Let's note the following: Biruitorul's version offers more (and more accurate) detail than the ER sample, and, unlike it, actually cites a source, with an exact reference. The measure to which they are identical puts to the test the limits of one's vocabulary - in just how many ways, without randomly cutting down relevant info, could one possibly phrase a bare and exact text? That bare and exact text most likely follows from the source: the clues are that Birutorul went directly to the source - he, unlike ER, spells out what school Gigurtu attended in Charlottenburg, and gives his exact rank in the Army. As Biruitorul himself put it, ER editors are not the only ones who can read a book. And, btw, the main reason why I would think one hasn't and can't be copying the ER in this instance is the exceptionally poor quality of the ER article: they call the city Charlottemburg, they spell the word Ministerul as Mnisterul etc. In fact, given that the ER article has stereotypical, jingoistic, antiquated and bombastic references (WWI is referred to with the fallacious title "the War for Integrating the [Romanian] Nation", the antisemitic agitator A. C. Cuza is referred to as "Professor Cuza", and so on), it may turn out that it is the one uncritically copying one source it may or may not cite in its bibliography. Dahn (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've restored the edit history then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Dahn (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeezzz. I logged yesterday to Wikipedia, not all of us watch and work on it 24hours a day. It will take time before I respond to everything--Molobo (talk) Also what does it mean to strike out ? Is it like this "------" ? I know only basic editing functions on Wikipedia, so I don't know how striking works, and would need instructions.--Molobo (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Ok I stroke that out, although I for my defence must say it looks very similiar to Polnische Bande or Banditen that was used by Nazi propaganda. I trust that per your comment you will stroke yours out also ? Also since you know German well-what does the sentence Wirklich verübeln kann man es denen aber nicht, die wurden bis in die Neunziger so geimpft daß eine neutralere Sicht schwer fällt. mean ? --Molobo (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

""das spricht Bände" actually meant? " An so the bandits speak. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted the mergeto tags that I added to The Albanians in Medieval Epirus. I realize that copyvio material can't itself be merged. What I meant by those tags is that a version of the page, rewritten to avoid copyvios, might appropriately be merged into one or both of Albanian people or Epirus. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC) =[reply]

You deleted the entry on the film American Faust: From Condi to Neo-Condi. While certain sections did have clear similarities with an entry found on Facebook, the factual content remains the same and corroborated by references. The information box, the reviews, the history, the style sections are all in the public domain now as facts. It is also established practice to first inform the page's creator before you delete the entire entry. Why did you not do this? Let's avoid abritration here. Please re-instate the page to allow for the appropriate edits to take place, and we can then reach some kind of consensus. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacnewton7 (talk • contribs)

Uhm, no, sorry. Both the first version I deleted and the second version you re-created in the meantime (and which I have now deleted too) were clear copyright violations, as far as I can see more or less in their entirety. Obvious copyright violations are subject to speedy deletion. Please do not restore this kind of text. You are welcome to create a new article if you can write it entirely on your own, based on reliable sources. Please also note that according to our policy on biographies of living people you must avoid turning it into an attack page on Rice – this means you need to strictly avoid anything that would imply the article endorsing the criticism of Rice made by the film. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have amended it further, and taken out the items that you objected to. Please now confirm that there are no violations.

Hey Future Perfect at Sunrise, thank you for rewording the Physical Characteristics section. I believe it is much more appropriate in this manner and functions to create a unifying potential between various divided populations. An assortment of propaganda sources have created artificial socio-cultural fault lines between peoples throughout the world, and I believe it is our job as Wikipedian editors to ensure that statements are made in such a way as to not suppress nor diminish the connection we all have with our largely common heritage. I believe Wikipedia itself functions to unite people in the strategic sense (long term), whilst on a tactical level (short term) it is inevitable that we sometimes come into friction with one another. That said, we are all here to create a community of nations, to respect each other and to treat all ethnic/cultural groups with a sense of justice, temperance, fortitude and wisdom (the four classical ideals). Perhaps this is the surest way to building a global society that is largely modeled on the global forum herein. Thanks again for your help and I hope you and I can constructively work together in the future. You are obviously intelligent, and I value your contribution to the article.--Monshuai (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, and thanks really go to you for doing the legwork of figuring this out! I only asked the question. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This text from the Austrian Science Fund seem so be pretty interesting. I saw you reverted it, and you did rightly so. The text was formulated in a way that NPOV seemed questionable. However, mentioning that such a research is currently being made by this Austrian organization seems to be a good idea. What do you think? (BTW I do not know the history of RashersTierney who added the link and you, so I will try not to be part of that discussion) —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link was added by socks of User:Dodona, a long-term banned sockpuppeter who has an annoying habit of getting enthusiastic over ripped-out-of-context and half-digested bits and pieces of sources, which he will then spam obsessively over multiple pages, while entirely lacking the academic competence to understand what it's all about. The research project as such is of course interesting (I have some professional interest in that kind of research, so I should know). But keep in mind it's a project that's only just started and has no results published yet; the ideas described in the text are only initial working hypotheses. Also, the text itself is not an academic publication but only a piece of popularised advertisement blurb published through the university's public relations office. And I'm not sure to what extent the public relations people got it right – the way it's worded it sounds a bit fishy, because it's far from obvious from me how these guys in Vienna plan to study the development of the Balkan linguistic union through the medium of the written documentation of "Old" Albanian, when the "Old" apparently refers merely to the 16th-18th century AD, which is long after the formation of the linguistic area. But be that as it may, they appear to be competent specialists, so they probably know what they are doing. I'll be very interested to see some results from their study, and when those come out they may well warrant a remark or two in the Balkan linguistic union article or the the relevant section of the Albanian language article.

An interesting little observation on the side, by the way: there's a remark somewhere there that they believe there's some evidence of postposed definite articles in Proto-Albanian already in antiquity. I looked around a bit to find out what they might mean by that, and found references to an article by Hamp from 1982 about "The oldest Albanian syntagma". I haven't been able to read it yet, but from citations of it I find on the web, it seems Hamp was referring to some document of Moesian. Which means if he and the Vienna guys were treating that as a piece of evidence relevant to proto-Albanian, they must be among those who regard Moesian rather than Illyrian as the linguistic ancestor. Just so you guys know what you're buying into ... ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply. You seem to be competent enough on the issue. I personally do not have any "preferred" hypothesis about Albanian language origin. I am familiar with Hamp's work though. I know that he was a real "fan" of Thracian-Albanian hypothesis. And later on, when some sentences in Thracian were found, and no relation of them with Albanian was found, I know that his research shifted. His most recent published book on the issue (in Prishtina 2007) leans more towards the Illyrian-Albanian hypothesis. Though not leaving aside other theories. —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do not see how is RashersTierney a sock of User:Dodona. He seems to be a user for a year, and no edits on anything even related to Albanian, Illyrians or similar. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, RashersTierney isn't a sock, of course not. He was just a well-meaning passer-by who tried to improve the addition without being aware of the background. The passage was first inserted by this IP, who was a Dodona sock, and then incidentally edit-warred back in by another unrelated banned user [8], a User:Wikinger sock, who has a habit of randomly reverting anything I do from time to time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, cool :) —Anna Comnena (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk:Jimbo Wales. To me, looks like typical sock behaviour.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. Yes, very sockish behaviour indeed. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Notonekilled was quite disruptive - thank you for blocking them.Autarch (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no way to stop this user creating more accounts and continuing to be annoying? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only technical measure would be a range block, but that is often quite difficult and it's usually done only in quite extreme cases (depending on what kind of IP range it is, the amount of collateral damage and so on.) Since the vandalism seemed to be concentrated on a single page, I've semi-protected that, which ought to help some. Apart from that, I can only offer you to come here and give me a shout if he turns up again and you should fail to get a timely response elsewhere. Just saw your remark over at the SPI page about being sent from one place to another – sorry about that; I know this can be damned frustrating. I often wonder what those guys at AIV are doing. But fact is, SPI is such a slow and bureaucratic monstrum. In fact, I've been working it today only because I've got a report of my own sitting at the bottom of the backlog and wanted to speed up things a bit so my colleagues will finally process that... Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't realise they were operating from a wide range of IPs. Note also that they have been vandalising AIV as well, which I'm not watching. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise, I've blocked IP address 79.191.252.68 for 48 hours for reverting your multiple edits on Greek alphabets. See Special:Contributions/79.191.252.68. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Obviously another User:Wikinger sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know of the above ANI - it is directly relevant (and refers) to this discussion where you participated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a Dodona style activity is recently active in Moscopole [[9]]. I've reverted this edit once, but the editor seems too enthousiastic about specific sentences in this book [[10]]. Thanks for your time.Alexikoua (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Entlínkt ist doof! 22? Thanks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@FutPerf. Hehe, sorry, I keep getting these sockmasters mixed up. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user has similar edits to LUCPOL, and he usually gives inadequete and often misleading edit summaries sometimes one word answers ("incorrect", [11]), while also simply stating "reverting vandal"[12] or the like. And he simply is removing valid content, usually without an edit summary, as seen here: [13] and [14], [15] and [16]. Specifically these edits he tries to portray a knowledge of a "historically accurate consensus", which there was none "consensus" on the talk page, but when i point out to him there is none, he changes it to "historically correct version", even though the name he is adding was not in existence until 1945, which is what im trying to say. 1.[17] 2.[18]

my information for this is since it was settled with a Prussian/Germanic name, and also this statement, "It was placed under Polish administration according to the Potsdam Conference in 1945. The town of Braunberg, previously known as Brunsberga in older Polish records, was then renamed to Braniewo." this information is apparent on the german and polish wikipedias as well. -- Hroþberht - picture yourself in a boat on a river... (gespraec) 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding this warning [19] you have placed on my talk page. In it you called my actions 'disruptive POV-driven editing'. Can you please clarify how removing phrasing so-called experts attributed to the members of Soviet commission, which is obviously non-neutral and does not exist in the sources, constitute 'POV-driven editing'.

You also placed similar notice on talk page of user Loosmark who already had been placed under formal notice by adminiatrator Thatcher [20]. What the purpose of second-time warning in this case?

Can you please also clarify whether the notice placed in my talk page a formal notification of editing restrictions (similar to that placed by Theatcher on Loosmark) or should be considered merely as a warning.--Dojarca (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed my signature- I often wondered why sometimes it would create a new line. I thought it was because of my widescreen display, but it was due to my extra code. DOH! Thanks!

To add, I just got Ostrogorsky's History of the Byzantine State, and it is far better than I thought it would be. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 14:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]