User talk:Husond/Archive 28

Thanks

For the Firefly award! Hadn't seen that one…I like it. :) -Pete (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock of Champlaintest

I accepted the unblock request on the talkpage for Champlaintest (talk · contribs), I only saw one instance of vandalism in the contribs/deleted contribs and there appear to have been no warnings given on the user's talk page prior to the block. I AGFed that it was a singular instance of vandalism and in addition, the user's story appears to check out, I quickly found an information literacy course at Champlain College [1]. Of course further vandalism would result in a block, but let me know what you think. (BTW, MBisanz (talk · contribs) will be watching the user's talkpg if vandalism warnings start to crop up.) Cirt (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and I'm glad your eyes will be on this as well. I agree it still sounds odd. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry

I accidentally reverted your edit on Ryan Jessup where you removed the line about his major. I hadn't really intended to. I'm not sure about removing it though. I mean, unlike the pointless blurb about his roommates, it seems like semi-relevant (if slightly tangential) biographical info. But I won't dispute it if you want to remove it again. - Vianello (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your RFB

Best wishes for your RFB -- Tinu Cherian - 05:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Husond, Sorry I've had to be a bear on your RfB... we've never interacted before (as far as I can recollect), but I the instance with Beam really stood out in my mind. I wish you had discussed the issue in your opening comments---learning from one's mistakes and admitting errors are the way we grow, so I was very pleased to see that you see this incident as such a positive. If you had brought it up, it might have changed my stance... or at least taken the fire out of it. Anyway, take some time to learn about CHU and if you decide to run again in 6 months or so, I'll promise not to hold this instance against ya (assuming it's not repeated ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Recognition of the Armenian Genocide

Could you take a look at the edit(s) made by Runningfridgesrule. The addition he/she makes is distorting the reference. Thanks. Kansas Bear (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan

Looks like I'm not helping much on your RfB :-( But, whatever happened to Beam, he dropped out quite suddenly in July and is much missed. Any ideas?--Regents Park (one for sorrow) 15:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RfB comments

I am genuinely sorry that I was unable to support your RfB effort. But I am even more sorry that you saw fit to turn this into a personal attack against me rather than calmly address the concerns that I raised. I hope that people would learn from my disastrous RfA not to get defensive when challenged in those forums, and I have already apologised to you (twice) and the community for creating disappointment from my actions. I do not have any personal animosity towards you and I sincerely hope that your comments were merely a heat-of-the-moment response to an unexpected observation (I would be willing to switch to Neutral if it was just a case of being flustered). Thank you and be well (and you are welcome to contact me by email or phone if you wish to talk about this further). Ecoleetage (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my comments and my participation from your RfB. It pains me to see that you repeated my RfA error by mistaking opinion and commentary on content for a personal attack. I believe that my concerns were valid and I had a right, as a Wikipedia editor, to express why I felt there were problems with the RfB. However, it was not a personal attack in any way, shape, or form, and I am genuinely sorry that you felt there was some malicious motive in my !vote. The idea of hurting anybody is wholly antithetical to the "real" me -- I could vent over frustration, as anyone does. But to genuinely hurt anyone? If I were that type of person, I would have offed myself years ago. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RfB

I've closed it; there's no way it would ever stand a chance of passing with so many opposes so soon. And you just know that a horde of people are going to come along and vote "per above"! It had already started, as a matter of fact. Bad luck :( Take care. naerii 17:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it has been re-opened and it is open now. Nsk92 (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Mate, you blew it with the comments to Eco, and [2] shows that you seem to have meant it. Sorry you're suffering the pressure here, feel free to send email if you want to let off steam. Trust me, I know it can get to screaming point at times. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly recommend that you withdraw this request - not because it's doomed to fail, but because I don't want to see a decent editor become disgruntled. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wisdom. Don't take damage, you're a great admin, but cratship isn't quite right for you just yet. :) —§unday {Q} 19:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's probably better so you can get an idea of what is needed for you to finally become a 'crat. Anyway, good luck. —§unday {Q} 01:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• No problem. Also, whilst you're here and I'm here.. could you undelete User:Naerii/Rewards for me (or, User:Naerii/Reward - I can't remember which it is)? Thanks. naerii 15:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Restored User:Naerii/Reward, the other was a redirect. Useight (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

unprotection request int. recognition of Kosovo

Dear Húsönd,

I believe time is ripe to unprotect. The community seems to have stabilized/polarized unequivocally in ration 1:10, with one lone dissenter, and will handle unreasonable dissent. The page is badly out of touch with reality. Please visit the talk page and decide for yourself. Any insider news from Portugal? Kind regards, --Mareklug ^talk 01:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger. I will rely on Ian and others to overwrite bogus content. Takk. :) --Mareklug ^talk 02:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

heh

what do you think of this?[ http://clanunknown.wikia.com/wiki/Clan_Unknown_Wiki]--Jakezing (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Was jsut made a few hours ago.--Jakezing (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this signature better?

SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 07:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

RFB closed

I have closed your RFB under WP:SNOW. Please see the closing statement I made at the top of the RFB: Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Husond 3. Thank you for your interest and I encourage you to work on areas of concern. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry about the outcome of your RfB. I do not think the final tally in any way represents what you have to offer as a candidate, nor do I accept the label "highly vindictive user" as applying to you. WJBscribe (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Husond, I saw this mentioned on the noticeboard and was surprised as to the topic of the discussion; I read further into the RfB and I am sorry too, about the outcome and opportunity runied in the RfB. I don't accept that you are an unsuccessful candidate, and I can with my mind, see you as a bureaucrat sometime in the future. Heck, even I wished to help at CHU at some point doing renames, but I doubt I'll ever have the chance now. Hopefully, with resilience and resolve you can compound those labels, and perhaps even work together more(?) - though I can't do any blocks, don't have the technical ability too :). I think I may have helped prevent Beamathan's situation getting out-of-control, but of course, I could have handled things better myself. Nobody's perfect. Regards, Caulde 18:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with WJB. Giggy (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

While I was a strong oppose and cited for many of the subsequent opposes, that doesn't mean that I don't concur with the above. One doesn't place themselves for 'Crat without having something to offer the community.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

lone dissenter, bogus content, badly out of touch with reality...

...are the continuation from the talk page where Mareklug numerously contested a quote from Greek MFA spokesman by calling it "sophistry and fancy dancin'" (?!), propaganda selling and "blatant lying and reality distortion" and then how I have a record of making things up, how I lie about Greek non recognition due to map on commons. He kept on asking why did I paint Greece in red on some map I update on commons where I clearly gave this link in the edit summary but it didn't prevent him from calling that quote propaganda, a lie etc. The quote in question is "Greece did not recognise Kosovo and does not recognise the secessionist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia." and was made by the Greek MFA spokesman.

So he made a dozen edits to discredit that quote and me subsequently even though the quote proved to be very real and official. He doesn't stop. He came here on your talk page and calls me a lone dissenter and what not. It only proves that those warnings did not work with him, he will continue to attack me without any reason.--Avala (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it's bound to happen but not because of me. And if you wonder why it is because Mareklug is posting on other users' talk pages instigating them to revert all my edits : "I think Husond or another admin will perceive shortly, based on talk page activity at talk:international reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo: one editor, denounced by several others for chronic obstruction and partisan distortions. It's obvious that the page should be protected -- from his edits, or not at all. The former will happen naturally as consensus reverts of his contributions by community." ([3]) He obviously wishes for an edit war to erupt and the intro is to defame me as a "lone dissenter". Even after the mfa.gr link was added to the article he spreads his fantasy on talk pages, he wrote that "The chronicially alleged Greek MFA wording allegedly stating support for Serbian Kosovo is not to be found anywhere on the MFA page." but the link is right there.

Now is that allowed? Is that editing in good faith? I think he should be warned for that, because instigating the edit war on purpose even if there is no present content dispute is a serious problem which should be prevented. --Avala (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the article it is a reply by the Greek MFA spokesman "Beyond that, however, as far as foreign policy is concerned – and we have taken our positions based on this in every case – there is the basic principle of respect for the territorial integrity and independence of states. Based on this principle – which is of long-standing importance to, and is a fundamental constant of, the Greek foreign policy of all Greek governments – Greece did not recognise Kosovo and does not recognise the secessionist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia."--Avala (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the article already has that and I don't think that he will actually revert but it doesn't stop him from spreading the story of "chronic obstruction and partisan distortions" in his plan to discredit me which is not based on facts. In the future if I add something he will again say how I used to add lies, fancy dancin, propaganda etc. He already did it the other day when he posted how I have a record of making things up. And by openly instigating other users to revert my edits he is creating a very unfair atmosphere for me and I would really appreciate if you could ask him now not to do that.--Avala (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

OK though experience teaches me he wont stop as he didn't stop for months. Btw could you semi-lock the article for IPs and newly registered users like before? It was helpful to stop a certain IP84 which caused enough trouble on talk page alone. Thanks --Avala (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured sound?

Hi, your language skills would be much appreciated for a potential featured sound nomination. I've located a good quality file for the national anthem of Brazil. The upload file is missing a bit of bibliographic data that featured sound candidacies require (date and location of performance, and the conductor if possible plus any information about who did the recording) which may be available at the source link. Could you see if it's possible to fill in these gaps? Best, Durova^Charge! 20:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hino Nacional Brasileiro Coral BDMG.ogg :) Durova^Charge! 20:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the translation. In order to pass featured sound candidacy, though, the commenters will insist on the date and location of performance. I'd be glad to write up the nomination and conominate with you in thanks for your help, once we have enough paperwork in order to run this. Best, Durova^Charge! 01:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved opinion

There is a discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks regarding:

1. Whether the proposed Disputed Islands infobox is neutral in its presentation of basic article information
2. Whether there is a valid reason to exclude the proposed infobox from the article

I should note that I am involved in the discussion, but I do not want to influence your opinion should you choose to offer one. I merely want some uninvolved editors to view the discussion and then offer an opinion. If you choose to participate, please post your opinion in the RFC comments section there. Thank you for your time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 37	15 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer	WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi"
News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones	Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

Hi Husond, I see that you have unprotected International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo. However, IPs have been messing with the page. Could you please semi-protect it? I think that's how it was before you fully protected it, but I'm not sure. Thanks, BalkanFever 09:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hud... thatr page is a absolute mess...--Jakezing (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I advise against semi-protection. So far we have not been overwhelmed by errant IP edits. And BalkanFever, the messing your reverted was by an established user, who disagreed on where and how to describe Macedonia on the page. And there really was no edit war on that score. So, no need to overpolice this. --Mareklug ^talk 13:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it was introduced by an IP. BalkanFever 13:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Koov (talk · contribs) with his socks has been around, therefore semiprotection is needed. We have not been overwhelmed by IP edits precisely because the article was at least semiprotected most of the time. Colchicum (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Preventive policing is not a good idea on Wikipedia. Articles are ideally open to any one's edits. Who is to say that we didn't lose all the good IP edits, that we otherwise might've had, particularly for obscure info from third world countries, had the article been open to begin with? I say, let the regulars -- who live in time zones spanning the globe, including Australia -- handle it for now. Only if this fails, protection would be called for. Protection should never be the default policy. And, this article has suffered for lack of edit capability, not because of any surfeit of it. :) --Mareklug ^talk 16:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think semi-protection is necessary for this article; at least not for the moment. Sporadic disruption does not justify semi-protection, especially if it's not even plain vandalism. As far as I see, everything's under control. By the way, according to the protection log, the article was not semi-protected before I fully protected it. Húsönd 16:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

It's too bad that the focus often shifts away from the depth of the record of the candidate but, I guess, that's the nature of life. Luckily, tomorrow is always another day! Good luck and it is great, but not surprising, to see that you're not letting this stop you. Thanks for the quackstar! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs)

Sweden

Hi Husond, I notice you reverted the era notation in the Sweden article. According to the MoS, either notation is acceptable, but neither should be changed unless part of a substantive edit and with consensus. This is not the case with the Sweden article. An editor came along a while ago and unilaterally changed to the less familiar notation. This is against policy and that's why I've reverted it to the original choice of the first major editor. Thanks. 141.6.8.89 (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello

You have recently reverted this edit: [4] saying I did not provide an edit summary. This is not true. I did provide an edit summary and even CITED which Wikipedia guidelines I considered before making that removal.66.57.44.247 (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't. I simply reverted removal of sourced comment. I did not make any mention to edit summaries in the diff you provided. Húsönd 00:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Husond

Thank you for supporting my RfA nomination, Husond. I particularly appreciate your consideration in reconsidering your vote after initially voting to oppose. Thank you for your confidence. Cbl62 (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotecting Big Brother 11 (U.S.)

Hi, I was just wandering if you could unblock Big Brother 11 (U.S.) so it can be created? The show has been picked up with sources. There is now substantial content for the article and while I am usually against creating articles for reality TV shows six to twelve months away I find it unfair for other confirmed shows like Survivor 18 to have an article while some can't. Plus anon editors may attempt to create the article anyway under a different naming scheme. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I created the article with the sources needed. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

.eu

check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania, and you will see that ".eu" is still there-- 86.127.75.158 (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed it now. Regards, Húsönd 06:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But you forgot to write "The .eu domain is also used, as it is shared with other European Union member states." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okta87 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's unnecessary. It's like saying .com, .net, etc are also used. That section is quite simple and is for the country domain only. Footnotes are not necessary. Regards, Húsönd 08:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

it IS necessary! all other EU country articles have that footnote. Now I regret that I told you about the ".eu" reference in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okta87 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I'll bring that up for discussion later. .eu is a domain for the European Union (as a whole, and its citizens), I'm really not sure if .eu should be mentioned on the infobox of every single member state. Húsönd 18:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate usernames

Hello Husond. Would you mind dealing with this Grawp sock (and by hardblocking that username)? Thanks. ~ Troy (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm bored, I've already blocked it. Booya. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks EVula. How about [5] and [6]? Same deal, I suppose. ~ Troy (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, most likely. Both indef blocked now. Húsönd 20:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, mate. ~ Troy (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Ugh, there's more where that came from. I've had to check every block log on the user list by opening a bunch of tabs. Here they are: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] ...they're all old and most of them must have been used abusively by User:Zog from a while ago. My favourite account name was probably "Wikipedia is full fat nerds with no life who revert war all day! XD too bad it was already blocked. Do you think there should be a place to report username abuse right away? Just a thought. ~ Troy (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There's already a place for that- WP:UAA. I'll have a look at those a lil bit later. Húsönd 23:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully I can spot some more. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Local consensus

RE [16]: I'd love to know what you are thinking then about this situation at Talk:Heckler & Koch MP5#Red Army Faction. Several months ago, I first tried inserting a referenced and imho clearly due statement that the weapon was used in the insignia of the Red Army Faction. It was removed each time by a brigade (pun intended, sorry) of users whose self-styled job it is to keep weapon articles "clean". They pointed me to Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Guidelines for why the statement "cannot be included". So I've tried it again, knowing that and even correctly guessing who exactly would remove it. But the sole intention there was to start the long overdue RfC. I'm really eager to see how that goes, and would appreciate it if you watchlisted the page. Please don't comment there though! This is not meant as canvassing, but as more of a case study regarding consensus, core content policies and also blatant POV pushing. The saddest thing is that I just know that even after the very difficult procedure of getting a harmless, due, verifiable statement like that into the article, someone would have to watch it 24/7 for the rest of Wikipedia's days. And this is just one niche article. There are thousands and thousands of situations like this and I have serious doubts our current processes (or the way we go about them) can reign in such problems as tendentious editing. Imho, the indulgence of local consensus as being able to override core content policies is highly detrimental, in the short run just as much as in the long run. Or am I iyo wrong to want that statement included for accuracy's and completeness' sake? It's always a distinct possibility. Everyme 18:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Olá Husond

Poderia bloquear/pedir o bloqueio do sock Oskulo/Xesko para mim? Na pt-wiki ele mudou o Username: [17], mas aqui ele atua com 2 nomes diferentes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visionism.

Cumprimentos, Tosqueira (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Cacela Velha

On 30 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cacela Velha, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Americana, São Paulo

Hi Husond! Hope you are well. Can you still help out with this, it still hasn't been fully translated The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OK take care of yourself. P.S I still love your user page layout. Best The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Avala (edit war diffs with before and after relevant page content)

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Not For Here. Please sort things on the talk page by requesting feedback from other users involved with the article; or request mediation; or page protection if there's an edit war. I am not to be the recipient of your never-ending disagreements and exchange of accusations. Húsönd 14:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please see: user talk:Mareklug where an unjustified warning template was placed by an edit-warring editor, implying that user:Mareklug is blanking Wikipedia: diff1 diff2
• Please see: talk:international reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo, where the issue of Poland/Kosovan diplomatic relations aired twice, with consensus opposed by the same editor who templated Mareklug. This is the current revision of Talk:International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo as edited by BalkanFever (Talk | contribs) at 07:27, 3 October 2008. (includes among others sections "Bosnia", "Poland", "Montenegro" and "Setting Poland straight: why it matters to get this right") diff: explanation by EmilJ diff: explanation by alchaemia diff: explanation #2 by alchaemia
• 6 times (spread over 2 days), 5 different editors removed this editor's introduced content. Mareklug was the only one templated by this editor, which shows singling out Mareklug for persecuion. (diffs in a separate section, below)

Diffs (an annotated timeline)

all times CST USA

• 1. Avala introduces his OR in the writeup of Poland, 6:27 25 Sep 2008
  • edit summary: none

Content as edited by Avala, 06:27 25 Sep 2008

	Country	Date of recognition	Status of reciprocal diplomatic relations	International organisations membership
18	Poland	2008-02-26	Blocked by Lech Kaczyński.	EU member NATO member

Content beforehand, also the current state, 7:27 3 Oct 2008

	Country	Date of recognition	Status of reciprocal diplomatic relations	International organisations membership
18	Poland	2008-02-26		EU member NATO member

• OR on Poland/Kosovo removed by Aotearoa, 27 Sep 2008
  • edit summary:"President's blockade is only in theory, Polish gov. hasn't any intention to sent amb. to Kos. yet"
• 2. unmarked revert of Aotearoa by Avala, 27 Sep 2008
  • edit summary: none
• again, removal of this OR by EmilJ, 29 Sep 2008
  • edit summary: "This is a red herring. The president cannot block establishment of an embassy, only appointment of an ambassador. Several embassies in Kosovo are headed by a chargé d'affaires."
• 3. revert of EmilJ bt Avala, 29 Sep 2008, restoring the OR
  • edit summary: "obviously if he says he can do it then he can. It's not wikipedia users that decide on powers of the president."
• removal of the OR by DaQuirin, 29 Sep 2008
  • edit summary: "this is about the embassy not about recognition and dipl relations in general"
• 4. revert by Avala of DaQuirin, restoring the OR, 6:20, Sep 29 2008
  • edit summary: "user DaQuirin gets warning for using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries.box clearly says Status of reciprocal >diplomatic relations< so edit summ.that this is not about dipl relations is bogus"
• removal, again, by DaQuirin, 6:24 29 Sep 2008
  • edit summary: "rv see , the Polish president stated that the recognition is in force (criticized by him) and he is blocking dipl relation on ambassadorial level"
• daQuirin returns the OR in a modified form, 29 Sep 2008
  • edit summary:"neutral wording on Poland"
  • later, Mareklug, EmilJ, alchaemia all write on the talk page that this mention of Kaczynski unwarranted, becauze the government has not proposed doing this. Kaczynski is "blocking" nothing.
• removal of this OR by Mareklug, 20:00 1 Oct 2008
  • edit summary: "Restore Poland per this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_reaction_to_the_2008_declaration_of_independence_by_Kosovo&diff=241301098&oldid=241298309"
  • this edit summary links the above Aotearoa removal of OR with its explanation in the edit summary
  • Mareklug started a SECOND section on talk page, to explain this topic and asking about this edit war. DaQuirin started the first one.
• 5. revert of Mareklug by Avala, 04:29 2 Oct 2008
  • edit summary: "rv an edit which was supposed to be justified by blog rant in the talk page ending with "Are we not men? We are Devo! :)""
• removed the OR by Mareklug, 23:26 2 Oct 2008
  • edit summary:"Undid revision 242458852 by Avala (talk) This is the 6th revert in 4 days by 5 editors of the same OR on POL by Avala. When will ComArb?"

Upshot

Since that last removal to now (7:27 CST USA, 3 Oct 2008), no one has re-added this content. There have been 9 edits since that time, as of this writing: by Mareklug, EmilJ, Bazonka, Cradel and BalkanFever, without any edit warring.

Mareklug in his other edits added significant position-altering updates for Libya, Bosnia, Macedonia and Montenegro, but without removing any pre-existing content, precisely to prevent edit warring. Avala however templated Mareklug, warning Mareklug that he will be blocked for blanking Wikipedia. So far Avala has not reintroduced this content. In sum, Avala introduced it 5 different times, while acting against the concerted actions of the remaining editors, who explained on the talk page, why this content was unwelcome.

Editorial abuse of this page was to be regulated by page probation imposed by the Arbitration Committee, including disruptive editing.

Page protection would be harmful, since the community has successfully improved this article, with occasional reverts, but no edit warring, except as documented here. Best regards, --Mareklug ^talk 12:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I wanted to inform you that Mareklug is removing the information on Poland solely on the fact that he is Polish and that he probably disagrees with President. His explanations in talk page looked like a blog entry, you can see it there. It ends with "Are we not men? We are Devo!" which pretty much summarizes all the rest of what Mareklug wrote in the text block ie. nothing on topic. The only sound argument I've heard was that Kaczyński spoke about future event but when I asked why do we then keep information about embassies which are planned and therefore equally a future event I didn't get an equally sound reply. I issued Mareklug with a warning for removing perfectly normal and sourced information. Removing things per "I don't like this" and keeping other things per "I like this" is as far as I know not what we are looking for here. I will not insist on inclusion of this in the article so that Mareklug can at least once enjoy the feeling to remove a piece of article and that it stays that way. He did it numerously before, comes in and cuts a piece out and then gets a reaction but let him have it this time without a reaction. Of course it doesn't mean I wont present it in the future as an example of his actions. On the other hand it doesn't stop Mareklug to put an OR label on an edit with a source. It's also not his first time to yell about OR while there is a source which matches the content. If Kaczyński says that he will not sign the ambassadorial diplomatic relations establishment and if I write in a column for diplomatic relations of Kosovo in a row about Poland "Blocked by President Lech Kaczyński" I think only a person with a strong POV on this issue will see OR and will have an urge to remove it. And regarding that 2nd editor, well I think it could be related to what I wrote to you about before, Mareklug calling people on talk pages to revert all of my edits.--Avala (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To whom it concerns. Above comments by user:Avala are baseless insinuations. I have not communicated with user:Aotearoa at all in the matter of user:Aotearoa's editing on the English Wikipedia. Frankly, the two of us have enough adversarial activity on pl Wiki to fill our plates. I only discovered Aotearoa's revert of Avala by looking at the article page history. Also, my reasons for removing this OR are plain and self-evident, and my reasoning has already been repeated and articulated without any ambiguity by EmilJ, alchaemia, Aotearoa and DaQuirin. I thought we are to assume good faith. Instead, I am being blackened and sullied six ways to Sunday, and it is only my personal talk page, and none other, that serves Avala as a deposit bank for ridiculous, uncalled for warnings. Even my witty and tension-reducing ending fourishes became transfored under Avala's keyboard into rants, weird & inappropriate "blog" entries, and generally, processed into discrediting me as a Wikipedian. And this man is an administrator and a user of 12k edits on this project. Shame.

Please act on the substance of edit warring as documented. And on the months of partisan disruption of the international recognition of Kosovo article, as attested by a multitude of user complaints, all archived or still on the talk page. President Kaczynski has not blocked diplomatic relations, which, as I commended to your attention exceedingly clearly, was the letter and spirt of Avala's initial edit. Chastised, he insisted on bringing it back 5 times in all, and then proceeded to template my talk page, threatening me with blocks for "blanking vandalism", exactly the scurrilous charges he wheeled out in March, under similar circumstances, when I removed his Fidel Castro-is-Cuba content and Armenia-already-rejected-Kosovo-independence misquote, both "impeccably sourced". I don't know what better exemplifies his role in crippling this article. We are only now digging ourselves from under his edits as a community. Best regards, --Mareklug ^talk 20:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Again you come here and shoot with unfounded accusations left and right and you have a warning for such aggressive behaviour the one which even admins found to be in place. But actually you do have a problem with Polish president. Here is the quote of you, which is all but `ending fourishes` - "The current Czech President suffers from a similar affliction, and I have been told, so does the Portuguese. Ceremonial Presidents seem to have a difficult time being entirely relevant. :)". Of course the fact that Polish president does have such powers in diplomatic relations is completely out of your interest scope. If you decided he is completely ceremonial then it must be so and I repeat it must be so. Any effort to prove you wrong either by showing you the Polish constitution or something else will result in an insult salvo, OR accusations, aggressive reverts, defamation on other talk pages and calls for revert war on a user who dared to prove you wrong.--Avala (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ow

Hi Husond, I was away from Wikipedia the last month, and saw that you went for RfB in that time. For the record, I'm saddened over what happened: after all my past (good) interactions with you, I can say that you did not deserve what happened...definitely not deserved. You might have made some mistakes, but who hasn't? As long as you learn from them and become a better person, you'll be fine. Best wishes. Acalamari 20:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A wikibreak barn-gift

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For your tireless work in making this encyclopedia great; and particularly for being unflappable under fire! Enjoy the wikibreak. Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 02:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

IP of the Baskervilles

I am wondering if I am not seeing a home account and a school account (?), as they are remarkably similar in behavior and posting interests - the Heroes articles, esp. Peter Petrelli and Sylar. I haven't the foggiest how to explore the possibilities, but they do edit in support of each other, and if related, it presents a problem. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Is this thing on? :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thin that a check might be in order. I hope everything is going okay on your end. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Talk Page Banners...Help!

I recently created the BBC Radio task force and I want this to be included in the BBC WikiProject template. I want it to say "This article is also under the scope of the BBC Radio Task Force, a collaborative effort focusing on articles relating to BBC Radio". How can I do this? I'm having trouble with this.

I hope you understand and can help me out.

Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 03:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. I tried to edit the template but I don't understand any of it. I was hoping you could fix this. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 16:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. What I want to do is add the BBC Radio task force to the BBC wikiproject template, just like the BBC Sitcoms has done. I'm having trouble putting this into the template though. Sorry if I'm not making any sense. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 16:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug

"Bullshit" is the word Mareklug again used to respond to me on article talk page, like he used to do often to me and other editors a few months ago. He removed it afterwards but he kept the part where he says that I need to be pushed. He also claims how I am lying and trying to conceal that Romania recognises Kosovo passports. The evidence he posted begins with "Romania does not recognize any document or note issued by the authorities in Kosovo". The text later explains people from Kosovo who don't have Serbian or UNMIK documents can travel on a special document they get at the embassy but am I crazy or is there a secret double meaning to "Romania does not recognize any document or note issued by the authorities in Kosovo"?! He is again trying to attack me with baseless defamations and is again introducing irrelevant off topic to that discussion.--Avala (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Compare Page-Infoboxes of Kosova and South Ossetia or Abchasia

I believe the Kosovo page's infox should be organized similar to that of South Ossetia and Abchasia. They are all self-declared and partially recognized independent republics, and I see no difference in the status of the republics in question. --Tubesship (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tocino. I've replied on my talk page. Caulde 13:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

avala and marek

I think we need somebody to get them to stop fighting... because it's been brought up bnefore, i gave my advice for them to stop editing the article for a while to cool down, --Jakezing (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Protonk

I've commented on your oppose. Everyme 01:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied again. In short: AGF is not a suicide pact. Everyme 12:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Husond, please! Stop replying to every comment, especially in such a snarky fashion. It's giving the RFA a really unpleasant atmosphere. (I know it isn't just you, but you should really know better). Best wishes, -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The above are merely notifications. Don't feel "urged" to respond, but I felt I've refuted your oppose rationale and thought you should know and might want to respond. Everyme 22:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'd really rather this continue here. Good faith opposes should only be responded to in order to correct some point of fact. If we get into subjectivity or opinion, the discussion is liable to just turn in to "this guy is great" "no he isn't". For what it is worth, I'm not sure there is anything much more to be discussed. Husond doesn't think I AGF enough about "A Nobody", Everyme (and me) disagrees. The added stuff is tangential. I don't really see how Everyme's post here can be interpreted as a demand for a response, but I accept that you interpret it that way. I will ask you (Husond) to consider not continuing your line of discussion with Alansohn. It isn't terribly productive. Thanks either way for the feedback. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

John Titor

An anon user continues to do massive edits regardless of calls for using the talk page.[18] He/she has also violated 3RR. Could you look into this? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation

Oi! Como vai você?

I am currently at pt-2 so I feel comfortable reading and comprehending but not writing. I translated the Anabela article from pt to en the other day, and then from there I started adding to the article and finding a lot of sources...by the end I wrote a lot more than was even at pt. I was wondering if you would have time to translate the revamped en article for Anabela to pt, and if you don't (because I saw your header at the top of your user page), maybe you could direct me to someone who could? I tried #wikipedia-pt but nobody has been in the chat room at all for the last day or so. Please let me know! Obrigado! Mike H. Fierce! 04:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

911

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Survivors of the September 11 attacks

The result was Withdrawn nomination. NAC Tavix (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Survivors of the September 11 attacks (2nd nomination)

Survivors of the September 11 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

CLOSED, NOMINATION WITHDRAWN AFTER COMMENT ON THE PROCESS BELOW This article is different from the one nominated for deletion about a year ago. It no longer has a list of survivors' names. The main body of the text describes how few survived and where they were located in the building. This could be easily merged with the main article or the WTC article. I am not aware of any reason why this needs to be a separate article, though this AFD could offer explanations.
There is no political agenda for the AFD. I am not trying to eliminate information about 9-11 nor am I opposed to mention of survivors or lack of survivors.
This article doesn't seem to meet WP criteria for people, i.e. notability. Nor does it meet the requirements of criminal acts, which is covered by the main articles. This article doesn't offer any information which a merge could not accomplish.
At this point, I recommend and merge and redirect. Editors who have worked hard on this should be encouraged to continue to do so after the merge, if that's what is decided. Chergles (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is Articles for deletion. It is not Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Please don't nominate articles here unless an administrator hitting a delete button is actually what you want. Deletion forms no part of the article merger process. If you want an article merged, the correct tags are {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}}. {{afd1}} is not the tool for every job. Uncle G (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I saw people vote "merge/redirect" so I thought one could AFD it. I will withdraw . Chergles (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep People who want information on a subject like this don't have a lot of places to look, therefore Wikipedia should have lists like these to supply interested people with relevant information. A merge would only clutter associated articles. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be a valid article. DGG (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawnChergles (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This message is being sent to all editors who made edits to this article in 2008, except IP and simple vandalism corrections/reverts. Chergles (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Hudson,

I gotta wonder, Why arn't the guideline pages Admin-only protected? The admisn would be the only editors, and i jsut had to revert soem vandalism on one of em, so.--Jakezing (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your name may be that but i don't wanna copy past it, and i don't know the alt codes for the symbols.--Jakezing (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Husond, the shit on the kosovo reaction talk page, has long been passed hitting the fan, that pointless arguing has to end NOW. --Jakezing (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

Hi. Could you please try to make HistoricWarrior007 (talk · contribs) behave more cooperatively at Talk:Kosovo#Colchium - stop edit-warring? He seems to be deaf to reason, and I am not very good in explaining such things. Colchicum (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nostradamus1

This user is removing a reference[19] in the Turks in Bulgaria article. He removed it again, calling it POV pushing![20] Could you help? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I will be removing the Yalamov, I., The History of the Turkish Community in Bulgaria (in Bulgarian), 2002, ISBN 954 771 024 1 reference, in the Big Excursion article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Husond.

I was wondering if you would join [21] and help me adjust to adopting it from the inactive founder and then getting it up and the needed templates aND SUCH.--Jakezing (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

can i have an answer?--Jakezing (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Help required

Hello Husond. Can you convert Nossa Senhora de Bom Concelho in English. It's in Portuguese. Does Nossa Senhora de Salvacao mean Our Lady of Salvation in English. Thamks, Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 12:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Take your own time. If you think you have found out the translation, then put it here History of Mumbai#Portuguese period (1534 - 1661). Anyway, do you have any history of the Portuguese in Bombay. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 05:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, Our Lady of Good Country has been added. I told you it was very simple. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 10:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

wow; what drama at this wikia

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim_s/200809 what a argument, coup's and everything.--Jakezing (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Basque dialects

Husönd, I'm currently working to expand the dialect information and I've done a table comparing some verbal forms that can be used on each dialect page to see where it sits within the dialect continuum. Could you have a quick look at User:Akerbeltz/sandbox please? The only way I can think of doing this is the way I have, by putting the meaning of the verbal forms at the bottom. Basque verbs are just such a pain to translate ;) Can you think of a better way of doing this? No hurry. Cheers! Akerbeltz (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Olivenza

Hi Husond, I'm pretty busy right now so I won't edit the article in the next days. However, you'll need a better argument that a mere statetent. Olivenza is a Spanish municipality just in the same way as the Falkland Islands are a British Overseas Territory, with a sovereignty claim by Portugal (just in the same way as with Argentina). Furthermore, in the Falkland case, thay, as the Islas Malvinas are even included within the Argentinian territorial organization (as part of the provincia de Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur). Stating it's like Kosovo is simply a POV that should be properly qualified as so. Doing otherwise is simply a pro-Portuguese POV that in similar cases, as the Falkland Islands is simply not allowed. I don't think that Wikipedia is a tool to promote territorial claims (even if they're are right, something that it's not in our hands to decide) and to cheat casual readers that receive a false impression.

Armenia-Turkey relations

Are these real "references"[22]? No page number is given for any of them. This is typical of Hudavengar's activities. Simply find a book title that adheres to his POV and uses only the book title as a reference. Is there something that can be done about this editor? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 42	8 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones	Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 43	10 November 2008	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week	ArbCom elections: Nominations open
Book review: How Wikipedia Works	MediaWiki search engine improved
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved	News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 44	17 November 2008	About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de	GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license
Wikimedia Events Roundup	News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)