User talk:Husond

	Archives; Húsönd creates an archive for every 50 topics
	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Welcome to my talk page! Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.

Start a new talk topic!

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Thanks

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your RFB

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

heh

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

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

Is this signature better?

Special K(KoЯn flakes) 07:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, Cau lde 18:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Requesting uninvolved opinion

There is a discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks regarding:

Whether the proposed Disputed Islands infobox is neutral in its presentation of basic article information
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)[reply]

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


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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)[reply]

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, Balkan Fever 09:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Fair enough, but it was introduced by an IP. Balkan Fever 13:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]