Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) at 13:47, 15 May 2014 (→Arbitration enforcement warning: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

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

non-free file=

Hi Future Perfect. Please go ahead and delete File:Sargent House Museum.jpg, I found a replacement in the Commons. Thanks for letting me know about this, I'll look harder for replacements next time. User talk:Vlad b, 14:48 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Require administer for discussion in talk page of Nanking Massacre

I see you are an administrator.If you are an administrator, can you administer the discussion of Nanking Massacre in its talk page? This discussion is totally mess. I hope there is at least two administrator to administer it for fair.
It is really a mess and endless discussion if no administrator to manage it. I hope at least two administrator to manage this. There will be no result to make everyone satisfactory. I hope there is a vote which is managed by administrator. Otherwise, this discussion will be endless. Everyone is wasting their time. This discussion started from section "I see a significant change of the figure about people killed in this Massacre".
Miracle dream (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2014‎

Merge

File:Universal Turing machine, built by Gisbert Hasenjaeger.jpg

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise, I tried to give a fair use reason for keeping this image. There's no other image of this quality, something from the 60's ultra deep in the past. Hope it helps. It makes the article.

scope_creep talk 01:37 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Common Names

Hey FP@S! I'm letting you know of a discussion that may soon gain mass importance and be subject to extreme examination. Due to your absolutely perfect understanding of the English language, I think that your input into this matter would be quite invaluable! Thanks!~ :D Here. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე

Topic ban of User:ArmijaDonetsk

Hi Fut.Perf., the new discretionary sanctions procedures require that when issuing sanctions you inform the sanctioned user of the appeals process I've done this for ArmijaDonetsk. In the future I suggest you use Template:AE sanction which is designed to meet the requirements of WP:AC/DS and give the sanctioned user enough information about what being sanctioned actually means. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Natalia Poklonskaya

Hello Future Perfect, a moment of your time please. You said we shouldn't run this on the front page. It is claimed that, since you added your opinion, the article is seriously improved. I would like to ask you to revisit the discussion and, at the bottom, (briefly) state if you are still opposed. It is a matter of some contention, to put it mildly. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

About the necessity for the linkages in Comfort women

I have written my opinion about the necessity for the linkages at Talk:Comfort women#About the necessity for the linkages. So please read them and let me know your opinion.NiceDay (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Need assistance

Need immediate assistance with repeated WP:CUTPASTE moves at Luhansk People's Republic. Please assist in some manner… RGloucester — ☎ 21:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, dearly. RGloucester — ☎ 21:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Rarevogel

Thanks for your edit there. No response and he's been editing since your post. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

He's ignored that. He's also ignored my comment on his talk page about his edit to Egypt (Roman province) and restored his edit, broken template, bad source, useless citation and all. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Another dispute

Because you are editing articles in this area, you may be interested in the removal of text in this edit. Rape in Kashmir

DS blanked without edit commentary my talkpage comment which drew attention to section blanking in the article by DS. (He accused me then that I was a sockpuppet of the editor with whom he was edit-warring in that article, instead of discussing with me on the talkpage, and opened a SPI. There seems to be a history of edit warring (including DS) and alleged sockpuppetry in the article, but he cannot accuse everyone of being part of it.).

(see also Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_56#User:Darkness_Shines_deletion_of_talkpage_content_.28Rape_by_.22militants.22_in_Kashmir.29

I have chosen to not edit there because of time and because my edits got reverted so often by DS. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Luhansk People's Republic

I understand that lots of "opinions" kept this page from developing, but it should not be handicapped, as a page, because of a few. As the subject of a lot of media articles for many notable events, it should be open to editors, and not left as a redirect. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Content discussions should happen on content pages. I've responded to you at 2014 insurgency in Luhansk. RGloucester — ☎ 18:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ethical dative and "archaic" kathareuousa

You have reverted my text changes on the Varieties of Modern Greek with a note "Katharevousa was a conscious *return* to older forms, not just a *preservation* of such forms. And your use of "ethical dative" is completely wrong.".

Clearly most forms of the dative in mainstream Greek dialects are substituted by the accusative. Only in the single example of the use of σου vs σε, as in the specific example given in the article, is there a differentiation between regional dialects. If there is any dispute on this point, perhaps there should be a clarification. I may be wrong calling it ethical dative, please correct me with a more accurate term, but it is certainly only in this form (μου φαίνεται, etc) that the dative has been replaced by the genitive. In all other cases from the list on the dative there is replacement by the accusative.

Perhaps you can propose a better definition of Kathareuousa than it being a conservative form. It is certainly not archaic or archaizing. I did not call it preservation, just conservative. Perhaps you can explain what you mean with a conscious return to older forms - perhaps that would clarify the issue. There was no other standard written form at that time. Anything close to a contemporary standard (Ερμἠς ο Λὀγιος, οι συγγραφείς του ελληνικοὐ διαφωτισμού, Church/related literature and other technical writing, e.g. school textbooks) prior to Independence used a similar conservative style.

I had no responses to the contrary in the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skamnelis (talk • contribs)

About the dative thing, I really don't understand what you are getting so hung up about still. You yourself cited that blog post by Babiniotis somewhere the other day, where he explains the thing reasonably well. It's not just "se" vs. "sou", it's the whole system of indirect object marking (including things like "Της μητέρας μου της άρεσε πολύ", "σιγά μην του έδωσε του γιου του και το Tοyota" etc. That's where the merger of the dative into the genitive has happened, and that's where today the dialects differ. About Katharevousa, please do read the literature (I find Horrocks quite readable, and you can get it in Greek too: Ελληνικά: ιστορία της γλώσσας και των ομιλητών της. Chapter 17 deals with the emergence of Katharevousa. The literature is quite explicit about this: Katharevousa was not just a direct continuation of the existing written registers of around 1800, even though in hindsight they might look similar to the untrained modern eye today. The Katharevousa movement of the mid-19th century considered those existing written registers unsatisfactory and was consciously attempting to go further back, bringing them significantly closer to ancient Attic. That's what "purifying" meant to its proponents, hence the name. That's why it would be wrong to call it simply "conservative". Conservative means "conserving" something in the state you find it in. The Katharevousists felt they were being progressive, renewing the language by consciously changing it back to an ancient form that had been long out of use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, you seem to have technially misunderstood something about signing your contributions: signing things with "~~~~" is what you are supposed to do on talk pages, like here, not when editing articles. And you do it right here in the page text, just after your contribution, not in the separate edit summary field. Writing ~~~~ into that edit summary box has no effect at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I forgot to sign and thanks for the clarification. That was not at all my understanding of Kathareuousa. I guess we cannot both be right or we are going by different definitions. My understanding of Kathareuousa is that it was a practical formalisation of the mainstream Greek used by literate Greeks (literate Phanariotes, expatriates, priests) up to Independence, in contradistinction to regional dialects, etc. Your understanding seems to be different. I do not know if someone defined it to his liking and wonder whether that matters. In any case, whatever Kathareuousa was by those who defined it best, should there not be an acknowledgement that stylistically the type of Greek used in writing prior to Independence was conservative? Two thousand years of written Greek are called "artificially archaic": "Ever since the times of Koiné Greek in Hellenistic and Roman antiquity, there was a competition between the naturally evolving spoken forms of Greek on the one hand, and the use of artificially archaic, learned registers on the other". Horrocks uses both terms conservative and archaizing to describe the written forms but cautions against the polemic as an anachronistic projection of a modern debate to previous periods.

The new examples you gave are the sort I had imagined following your response but I doubt they are being more commonly used than ἀρεσε στη μητέρα, ἐδωσε στο γυιό του. They are difficult in the present tense, better suited to the aorist and in relation to the article on variations do not differ between "north" and "south". Babiniotis stated that the dative has been replaced by the genitive but then all his examples had replacement by the accusative. All the forms on the article of the dative (except the ethical) use the accusative today in mainstream dialects - "τῷ βασιλεῖ μάχομαι", "πᾶς ἀνὴρ αὑτῷ πονεῖ", "ἄλλοις μὲν γὰρ χρήματά ἐστι πολλὰ καὶ ἵπποι", etc - also: ἐν Ἀθήναις, ἐν ὀλίγοις, ἐλἐῳ Θεοῦ, etc.Skamnelis (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

About "στη μητέρα" etc.: that's not replacement of the dative "with the accusative"; it's replacement of the dative with a prepositional construction (which then, incidentally, contains an accusative). But that's irrelevant here, because there is no dialectal difference in that respect. It also doesn't matter whether the genitive forms or the prepositional forms are used more often. As for "competition" etc.: I'm not saying that two thousand years of written Greek were all "artificially archaic", but that artificially archaic registers always formed one of the extreme poles in the range of registers common at any given point in time. And as such, they were in competition – often competition that speakers and writers were acutely aware of – with other varieties, including more middle-ground ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Page move needs to be corrected

Thank you for undoing Omar Choudhry's page move of Subhan Allah. Unfortunatly, you made a small error in doing so: you moved the page to Subhan'Allahr (with an unnecessary "r" at the end). I tried to correct it, but am unable to do so. It would be greatly appreciated if you could make the correction. Thank you.--Akhooha (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you help me understand the situation?

If article Anti-Muslim violence in India was nominated for deletion on June 7 2013, the result of the discussion was delete. Then why do we have it around? IMHO, it is a collection of other articles and has considerable WP:EDITORIALIZING. Jyoti (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

(watching:) the talk page is wrong, the result of the discussion was a deletion review, the article has a different name now. - I don't know more, but perhaps it helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The deletion was an earlier version of the article, under the title Anti-Muslim pogroms in India. The deletion was confirmed in a deletion review. The same editor then created a new version on the same topic a few days later, under the present title. The new version was just sufficiently different that it didn't fall under the speedy deletion criterion of WP:CSD#G4, so it survived. Since there were still a lot of parts shared between the two versions, I just restored the deleted old revisions and moved them into the history of the present article, so it can now be read as if it was the history of a single page. All the edits in the history from before 24 June 2013 are the old article. You can compare them to see how the article changed after that deletion. I agree some of the article may still be somewhat problematic in tone and quality and selection of sourcing, but it's certainly a lot better now than last year. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

In response to this AE request you are hereby warned that further misconduct such as edit warring (as you did Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War) may result in sanctions which may include revert restrictions or bans from editing pages or specific topics under the discretionary sanctions authorised in the India-Pakistan case. Given that there were comments regarding the expectations of administrators you are also reminded that, per the administrator policy, administrators are expected to "lead by example" and "follow Misplaced Pages policies". This warning will be logged in the enforcement log of the India-Pakistan case and may be referred in the future if misconduct is reported. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I note your opinion but I reject it. It is a widespread but nevertheless stupid myth of Wikipedian dogmatism to think that reverting is always bad and forbidden. Such a rule would make sense if dispute resolution processes otherwise worked, but with certain types of hardened, persistent disruptive editors, like the one I was dealing with here, they just don't, and therefore a certain amount of reverting is unfortunately unavoidable. Enforcing the edit-warring policy in this way would be dogmatic, unrealistic and not in the interest of the project. I therefore reject the notion that I was engaging in any form of misconduct, and I vow that I will continue to do what has to be done, should this type of situation arise again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)