User talk:No such user

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Leaving messages from unknown IP[edit]

You better watch your business about my edits. --Lumi (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

What if I told you, that IP matches with your account? --Lumi (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Novi Sad[edit]

Hi! Lets finde a solution. I think to add the hungarian name is not importent, because we have the section name fore this.--Nado158 (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


Two of the links you removed were already active, so please dont remove them without cause. As for the inactive links, given the fact that two of their equals-in-context were already active, this gives me cause to assume that their creation at some point is indeed a possibility. After all, red links help Wikipedia grow. --Jamez1502 (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest that the article's talk page is a better place than mine for this discussion?
Actually, I went a step further and clicked on the links you refer: Agios Nikolaos, Zakynthos (created by myself, btw [1]) leads to the nearby harbor (already linked elsewhere), as you can see here: 37°54′20″N 20°42′21″E / 37.90556°N 20.70583°E / 37.90556; 20.70583, while Agios Sostis leads to an unrelated village in mainland Greece. Since I know the area, I can tell you that those islets are uninhabited, off-coast rocks about ~100 m in length each, unlikely to satisfy WP:N. There must be a limit where WP:REDLINKs are desirable. No such user (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for the correction, No_such_user! Best regards! --Correogsk or Gustavo 18:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome Gustavo. See you around. No such user (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Azerbaijani language article[edit]

Heads up: :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Pau riders[edit]

I disagree with your assessment of consensus, well actually since you didn't use consensus, I object to that. I would have waited for an administrative close but to be honest, I don't feel like bothering them about this at the moment. So I wanted to tell you upfront I do not believe you called that correctly and perhaps a non admin closing was a the best way to handle that dispute. Feel free to delete this, respond here or on my user page, but I have no immediate plans to dispute this further for the moment.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said, the debate was long and unwieldy and apparently no one wanted to resolve the Gordian knot, so I decided to take it upon myself (and started a discussion at WT:AT to that effect, as the whole ‘Okina MOS is hopelessly tangled). You are correct that there is no consensus, but it was apparent, at least to me, that the actual title was the worst choice. Of course, you're free to disagree. No such user (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
No, we are not to that point. Your thread and proposal gained no consensus where you say: "OK, I see your point – that quote marks of any kind are discouraged – and I agree with that part, so I'm striking my proposal as inadequate" it also has no bearing on the point. There was no consensus to change the article title regardless of your closing and move.
If anything, you're convincing me that the whole business is needlessly tangled. Regardless of my personal attitude whether ʻokina should be used in the article titles, it should not be grouped along with quotes and apostrophes in WP:AT. Just because it resembles one, it's not an apostrophe. As the article says, The ʻokina, [...] is a [...] letter (bold mine). I'm inclined to strongly agree with Kavebear and In ictu oculi that apostrophe is not an adequate replacement for an ʻokina under any circumstances, and thus Pa'u riders is not an appropriate encyclopedic title. Now, it's up to WP:HAWAII to decide, without unnecessary constraints from WP:AT, if it should be used or not in article titles and/or text, and I won't interfere with that. As I said in the closing statement, the quoted wording does not provide any guidance except to create redirects as appropriate (we knew that, thanks). No such user (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't care about WT:AT because there was no consensus there. You also don't understand who is arguing what and why. I am the one that requested Pa'u riders be changed to the okina to User:Fram because the apostrophe is being used as the okina and shouldn't. The other editor objected only because I objected to changing to the complete Hawaiian orthography and then made the Move Request suggesting numerous names but the one on the admin's talk page I was requesting. My request is based on spelling a group or organization's name. Also with the current title the "R" is not capitalized and changes the scope of the article. Now we are only talking about pau riding alone as a tradition and not the organizations and that's not the current scope of the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
@No such User thank you for the ping. I have no particular concern about the close other than you should amend the template to include the "non admin close" indication. @Mark Miller, I am generally sympathetic to use of correct fonts for all Latin-alphabet languages. I wish you luck with arriving at consensus at MOS Hawaii. There must be more than one article this affects. If it really is an issue then suggest come back in 6 months to Pau riders and revisit the RM. Best wishes to yourself and Kavebear and all those adding Hawaii content. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The Okina is what should be there and MOS Hawaii did sort almost all this out and there appears to be a rough consensus on how to handle the situation. You are only interfering in that. The MOS Hawaii consensus states only that in cases where both diacritics are used, to use either or none. But in cases where it is the group/organization, person or place to use the their spelling but replace the apostrophe with the okina. This was just a bad closing and a move for the wrong reasons.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
None of this was mentioned on the debate at the time I closed it (and I read it all). How was I supposed to know about it? In any case, the article was at Pa'u riders (with an apostrophe), which was clearly incorrect. Just now I saw (and I'm reading) the lengthy debate at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles. When and if that concludes with a clear outcome, feel free to speedy move Pau riders wherever it's suitable. My move should be understood as an interim measure, not as an ultimate decision. And the discussion at WT:AT is completely orthogonal to the whole issue. No such user (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not clearly incorrect. It is the actual spelling used through out the modern day use of the organization but, consensus exists to treat all apostrophes in Hawaiian words as Okina and should be changed when found, because people don't have an okina button on their keyboards. How are you supposed to know it? You even bring up MOS Hawaii, I assumed you went to the talk page. Perhaps you just read the MOS itself. OK, that could have saved some time. As I said, I am not going to ask for it to be changed. If I have to, expanding the subject may be an option by forking. It is historic, and has reliable sources of a diverse nature. But, I do think the closing was not the best route.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


You've been here a while now, Nsu, you should know better than to engage in frivolous edit wars over a couple of remarks that are indeed crass. If any AfD discussion is preventing you from keeping calm, you're doing it wrong :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should note also that it was a good idea to call someone - but at that point you should have just left it alone, or just reinstated your comment without the acrimonious phrasing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Joy, I ain't no saint, as you know, and I don't suffer fools gladly. Actually, I was quite restraintful, as I wrote down a few Corbett-style insults, but rephrased them before posting. Don't know about you, but some venting off at total assholes helps maintaining my mental health. Yep, I know a wikibreak would do as well, and I'm considering it. No such user (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


Don't try to school me by putting these links to good-faith editing and so. Fyi, I've never wanted the discussion because there wasn't need for it. All the "oppose merge" comments are based on self-belief of how something should work, and not on reliable sources. That's why I-m "pushing" you to write good reasons for opposing, and all you who opposed merge gave a bunch of non-written rules of how it should look. This is the first time I've joined the discussion and I regret it. When I feel that something is not right (based on FACTS), as more as you continue to defend its "legacy", I will attack its disputed legacy even further. Loss is not an option. It could be an option if I was wrong. I'll be the first one who admit that I was wrong, but that is not a case here. The discussion will continue.--AirWolf talk 17:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the point with this your notice that I've made a good contribution to Serbian economy related articles? To soften my stance in future on this topic? If that's the case, then f*** it, I don't care.--AirWolf talk 17:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
re2: "with better or worse arguments." I laughed here the most. What arguments? What?--AirWolf talk 17:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
re3: Let me ask you philosophical question. Do we, as a community, have to respect good-faith opinion if it is full of non-sense? Or even more radical, as you were pointing me to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, I'm pointing you to Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith. Now what I'm telling, you were unconstructive, thus way probably wanting to dispute merging.--AirWolf talk 17:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't have any words for what you wrote. Shame on you.--AirWolf talk 20:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
For the sake of a discussion, I apologize if I've offended you. All my talk since I started with bad, "selfish" words in a really good manner, in order to try to direct you to facts and how it was done with other similar companies. Then, in my opinion, when I contested any of your previous talk, you've started to give another and another reason of why the articles shouldn't be merged. And each following reason was even fewer and fewer reasonable (in my opinon). Sorry, but I see such talk by intentional screwing (sorry for such expression). Again, I apologize you here and I'll revise my bad talk in discussion. Just like you've said: "It's just a fucking article on a fucking website." Have a nice day.--AirWolf talk 13:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Irony[edit]

Thanks for alerting me to this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate the easy and comfortable quality/position of being cynical and witty :) it's still in the community's best interest that we try to avoid having these things escalate, so I've stepped in. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Just keep pushing everyone's buttons, see how well that'll work for you :> seriously now, it usually helps if an uninvolved person intervenes. At the very least, we usually get some result. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)