User talk:Husond

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.

---

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

My vandals!

[start]

Them's MY vandals! You will not prevent me from pumping my edit count ad infinitum, To the ARBCOM!
Seriously though, keep up the good work :) - Icewedge (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

First of all, I do not think of the title "immigrant" as an insult. What prompted me to respond in such fashion was User:Mareklug's pedantically pointing out my typos and calling me sad and unscholarly in the process. I found it slightly ironic that a non-native English speaker was criticizing a native English speaker for poor English. This would be like me learning Polish and insulting User:Mareklug for speaking bad Polish. And you say I am stalking User:Mareklug, but all I did was look at his user page where it says that he's a native Polish speaker. I am personally opposed to user pages as I don't believe that WP is a social networking website. But I was unware that it is classified as stalking to simply read the infoboxs of user pages. I will be more careful next time. --Tocino 06:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning to new user JLE1021

Hi Husond,

I noticed you left a level 1 user warning for JLE1021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on May 19. It appears according to his contribs that he was in the process of creating a new article in good faith, apparently blanking and starting over North Point State Park. I just mention this in case you're inclined to revisit the user warning on his Talk page. Cheers, JGHowes ^talk - 15:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

Please update the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.102.27 (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Done--Húsönd 18:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. You saved the day. That's no nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.102.27 (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Husond. We have a consensus here. would you please do the honor of performing the request ? ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. Ive just updated the edit request. im sure no-one will disagree now its been updated. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks mate Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You should add Sierra Leone.84.134.87.152 (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality on your move

Sorry for the delay. I had internet connectivity problems. I note that you reverted the page move. You have accused me of partisan tactics by closing a straw poll 'without consensus'. I would like you know your actions on reverting my move considering that you were involved in the previous October closure. As party to the previous closure, I certainly do not think your move was accomplished in a neutral fashion. You should have reclused yourself from the move. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

I don't see any further point in debating the nature of my move. You have your own opinion of the authenticity of the move, and I have my own. So, instead of flogging a dead horse, let's learn from the lessons here to move ahead, as we need to be nip this controversy once in for all. Based on the feedback you and the others have given me, please do let me know if you find my proposed solution Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Solutions? suitable to proceed further. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Chill! You seem to make it as if 'processes' need to conform to an ISO 9001:2000 audit. :) I can see you are still being very sentimental over the whole issue. The feedback I have received is that the most neutral method to resolve it was the way WJScribe mentioned on my talk page. We still have a big deal of disagreement on what the term consensus seems to be about and I see no point debating it any further since we have our own fixed points for this matter. Since I believe that my involvement on the issue can no longer be said to be neutral or uncontroversial, someone else should take over. There's a lot to be learnt from this decision, and in the future I would give similar moves a run in WP:RM to avoid this sort of needless moving controversy, and closely act on the suggestions as given by WJScribe and RegentsPark. I still wish you do assume good faith when it comes to mentioning it that it was totally out of process. If it was mentioned there that such events had to be put up on RM, I would have tendered an immediate apology. As for the revert, I have clarified the revert on ANI (May revert). =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For your sexy ass

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		The title of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sexy ass not being watched enough makes me laugh every single time I see it. Bravo, my friend. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sexily seconded. Best AN thread in a while. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please Protect Elizabeth Halverson

This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Halverson is being vandalized by non-logged in editors (IP addresses). Can it be protected so those that wish to add / change / edit it can not do so anonymously? Halverson is controversial right now, and I think protecting the page will keep things on the up-and-up. Proxy User (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Declined Sorry, but the current level of disruption is too low and does not justify protection for this article. Húsönd 13:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Costa Vicentina map

I'm sorry only now I'm able to answer your request of 19:56, 21 August 2007. I've been several months away from wikis. The map I did for the Southwest Alentejo and Vicentine Coast Natural Park was made over a map of the park and surroudind areas. I coloured differently the area of the park and outside it (removing details), and made the coastline stronger. Then, I added towns and names. I'm not thinking about making new maps in the foreseeable future. I'm sorry. Escrevi em inglês por estarmos na Wikipédia inglesa. Um abraço. Francisco (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Vlado Gotovac

Hi

I'd like you to give your opinion here about the request move:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vladimir_Gotovac#Requested_move --Anto (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Gulf of Piran

Hello!

You blocked me on the Gulf of Piran article. I will explain why I am changing the unsourced parts of the article. I don't know if you've heard, but the Gulf of Piran is a sensitive topic between Croatians and Slovenians. The matter will probably go to arbitration. As such I belive it is best to keep the article based on solid and uncontested facts. Ante Perkovic has now "found" sources. Please go and revise them. Ou, they're in Croatian. Even if translated to English it's a biased oppinon. I'm not saying it isn't true. But when new countries are formed there is a lot of gossip and unconfirmed rumors. Just by writing them does not make them true. So what I would like is to have the Gulf of Piran article purged of such stated "facts". This thing can just blow into an editing war in which one side lists their country's sources and the other their's. If they find an outside source, that's fine with me. But rest asured that both sides have extremist's organizations and individuals who will put just about anything as a source. The constant markup of unsourced "facts" is also a bit strange. If someone put info on Hitlers biography that he was a great person, should that info stay for some time with the sign that the info has no source? You see what I mean? If you're up for the job please, research the materials, try to find "outside" sources and find out what it's really all about. But simply protecting info from dubious sources or no source at all is a bit harsh. I had a sourcing problem with mr. Ante Perkovic before. I'm not saying that it isn't true!, but the source has to be valid, accepted by both sides. The thing in question was a pdf from one of Croatian magazines. Slovenian magazines have similar articles, hell we even have a polititian who says that all of Istria is Slovenian! And he has "sources" too prove that. I belive that those kind of disscussions only bring less understanding. So please: check the Gulf of Piran for sources both sides agree on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.143.154 (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 21	19 May 2008	About the Signpost

Pro-Israeli group's lobbying gets press, arbitration case	Board elections: Voting information, new candidates
Sister Projects Interview: Wikibooks	WikiWorld: "Hodag"
News and notes: Russian passes Swedish, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Good article milestone	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 22	26 May 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections: Candidate questions	Single User Login opt-in for all users
Community-related news sources grow	WikiWorld: "Tomcat and Bobcat"
News and notes: Wikimedia DE lawsuit, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured sounds	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) 07:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin buddies

I would certainly value your advice regardless, and will try to give you some from time to time as well! I liked the idea too, I think it might help in preventing some of the burnouts/flameouts we've seen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Red reeds

Thanks. Is this better? 79.3.240.55 (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the star! Your reasoning was quite hilarious (the distraction part :)). Cheers, Razorflame 01:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry about that Dreamin' edit

I actually edited it for a reason this time. there's nothing wrong with what i did this time right?

JasonDaniel123 02:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user causing trouble

User:69.29.70.177 is deleting my comments on a talk page.

• 15:26
• 15:49

I asked him why he deleted my comment and he just deleted that too. 15:48

This is his page. Will you please sort him out and tell him not to delete my comment and edits in the future? Thankyou.Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Topic bans

Are you still up for more collaboration? I am, if you are. Regards, Rudget (Help?) 16:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at the moment. I don't want this incident with Beamathan to be repeated, but I feel as administrators we have a duty to root out those causing disruption under the various pages listed under ArbCom, and make sure we can either 'reform' them or simply remove them before they can cause any more damage. We've worked on other occasions, I think, aside from topic bans, so I still do want to work with you further. I hope this makes sense. Rudget (Help?) 19:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For the humor you used on my barnstar, I hereby award you this barnstar! Razorflame 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur. You do have a good sense of humor. Somewhere, a mime is being sacrificed in your honor. Yay! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

...that's cause for a barnstar in and of itself. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks guys. :-) Dang, I was aiming for a kitten sacrifice. Húsönd 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Urgent

Please ban this person, here is what he wrote, "Kosova2008 is a albanian you cant expect them to value children or human live, they love stealing other land and destroying the people ancient Monuments. What you expect from uncivilized animal, I also should of been more clear and said Western Supported Terrorism.He also on several List just not Western ones since they arm and supported hi. But Wiki is A Propaganda website ran by people who can bend truth to feet there needs like him" (75.118.148.170 (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)). --Kosova2008 (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

I wasn't quite sure where to go with this. An open discussion of Talk:Captain America#Intelligence has been met with gross incivility by User:ThuranX despite warnings. I was wondering what could be my next recourse, to bring the discussion back to civility. Any help or direction would be appreciated. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

There has been no resolve, I have been away from wiki for a while, as well, and been apprehensive to continue the discussion with the incivility as it was. Any intervention or direction would be much appreciated. Thank you for your attention to this issue. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

I can't find any recent instances of incivility there. Please provide diffs with evidence of recent behavior you find uncivil. Húsönd 17:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy and pasted from the conversation:

“ I was reflecting a little more on this topic. As editors, I don't believe we play part of the source material off of another without 3rd party validation, as this is original research. I move that intelligence be included. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC).

And yet, others still oppose you. It's not 'original research' to provide multiple citations, examine them, discuss and come to consensus. ThuranX (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC) It is orginal research if all the citations are strictly fictional. That examination and contrast, by editors is at the purest defination OR. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC). THe horse is dead, stop beating it. It's clear that consensus is not with you. Please drop it. ThuranX (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC) 1. I encourage a focus on civility during this discussion. 2. I revisit this discussion, as concerns of original research were not brought up in the previous. Currently, the previous discussion was weighing one piece of source material vs. the next, stating one was more canonical than the next. Such an editor driven discussion is OR. There is not harm providing a intelligence not, specifically when the supporting image supports this not. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC). Glue factory called. They want to hire you. Consensus against you, not OR, move on, thank you. ThuranX (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

”

This is what I thought to be particularly incivil. Again, thank for you attention. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

Yes, ThuranX was uncivil in his last comment. However, that was more than a week ago. On Wikipedia we don't "punish" editors, we only apply any measures to halt any persistent disruption when it's occurring at present time. If ThuranX continues to be uncivil to you, please remind him that he is obliged to respect WP:CIVIL. If he continues to be uncivil after your reminder, then it would be adequate to report his continued misbehavior to an admin. Otherwise, no admin action is in order. Húsönd 22:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I had notified you immediately seeking resovle. I understand the time elapse however this was addressed almost immediately. I will keep this in mind with further discussion. Thank you for your help. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC).

Although there has been a change in blantant incivility in discussion, there continues to be gross incivilty in judgemental tone in the edit summaries with the most recent listing "you just don't get it," listed, - 19:54, 15 June 2008, again despite con't reminders of civilty. If you could help to resolve this, as you have been involved throughout the duration of the problem, rather than a new administrator, it would be appreciated. Again, thank you for your atttention to this matter, it is greatly appreciated. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC).

"you just don't get it" is certainly not the nicest edit summary, but I don't think it can be considered deliberate incivility. At this moment, no admin action is in order. You may of course report further behavior you consider uncivil or inappropriate. But it will take much more than this kind of edit summaries for drastic measures to be necessary. Regards, Húsönd 21:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(redent) You were correct that the previous statement was marginal at best; however, the comment for discussion entry for Talk:Captain America#Intelligence under "Intelligence revisited" stated "sick and tired of this shit." User went on to write:

“ You know what? I don't care anymore. You don't care about the extant consensus, so why should I bother defending it on and on? You're never going to let up, or listen to fucking reason. Go add whatever you want. ThuranX (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC) ”

-

Thank you for being so patient with me as we work through this, and you continued diligence.66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC).

When was this? When reporting misconduct, please use diffs. Regards, Húsönd 00:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

[1]. For what it's worth, there seems to be dispute on whether I am "ignoring consensus." However, I believe, I have been providing additional sources, to re-explore consensus strictly in a discussion, which continues to have such reactive responses. This most recent response was yesterday. My continued thanks and regards. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC).

Squeegee, sponge, and chalk?

I can't figure out what they are supposed to represent. Every theory I have come up with so far could explain a different two out of the three, but not all of them. Please help! :-( --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 07:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi Husond, Sorry to bother you, but some problem editors are attempting to change the name of the Gandhi page from Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (which is in keeping with all major encyclopedias, and I checked six) to Mahatma Gandhi (where "Mahatma," an honorific, is explicitly discouraged in the lead of WP:NAMEPEOPLE). In particular two editors:

• Nikkul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• Beamathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

are now talking about moving the page regardless of the discussion where the fabled consensus is eluding them.

I'm just frustrated that I have to waste time with these people (none of whom have any history of actually editing the Gandhi page and all of whom are either rude or facetious or both) until I am blue in the face, and finally, when in frustration I say something sarcastic, they immediately turn around (usually after a quick metamorphosis to a whimpering victim tone) and accuse me of not showing enough sensitivity to their fragile newbie nerves. Can the page be protected against arbitrary moves? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

:That would be a bit precipitous since the article has not been moved. If it is moved, I think there is sufficient consensus to move it back and then protect the page. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 14:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! No, the storm has passed. There was no consensus for change to "Mahatma Gandhi," actually not even a majority. The RM and its discussion was closed and has been archived. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Husond, just letting you know that no move was ever threatened without consensus, and fowler seems to be trying to take advantage of you and your feelings towards me. If there's anything you'd vouch for regarding me, it would be following consensus. I'm getting up evidence for my cause now, don't let fowler play you for a fool. Beam 23:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there was a RM closed by an admin then I guess the dispute is settled for the moment. Húsönd 23:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I just didn't want you dragged into something, that's all. Beam 23:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
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) 08:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Polscience

Please, I need your help. I am pretty sure that Polscience is trolling again on Europe and it's very sad to see how a user with good faith user: MorganaFiolett is investing his energy trying to have a fair discussion. It's just three days after 12 socks of Polscience have been identified and blocked. Two of those puppets were trying hard to disrupt, once again, the European country list. Just one day later user: Coniatis pops up with edits like this one on the Europe talk page, or this one on my talk page, where he complains that I, as the responsible editor, do not reply to him within one day. Normally, Coniatis should not have any relation with me. So why would he act immediately this way?
As you can see from the first link, I have already posted a request on Allison's talk page in the same section where the other socks were confirmed. However, I did not get a reaction at all. Does that mean my suspicion is wrong or was there simply no action yet. Since I am very sure that Coniatis is polscience, I am wondering whether I should put this on the talk page of Europe or MorganaFiolett in order to avoid that sincere editors waste their time on this troll. What is your advice? Can you initiate a chec on Coniatis? Tomeasy_talk 17:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Very early suspicion

I am probably quite early with this remark, but here's what I think: Polscience resurrected once again this morning. After creating his account as user: Geographyfanatic, he made a few constructive edits on Europe to finally put this on the talk page. If it is not too complicated to check this user please do, before editors with good faith spoil their efforts. My apologies, if my suspicion is wrong. Tomeasy_talk 07:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sierra Leone

[2] The Kosovo president site says that Sierra Leone recognised. Please add to the list ;)

Hey Husond, I just fulfilled the EP request here - I didn't see your note until after I had done it. The sources do seem to confirm though, and there seems to be a variety of editors that agree with the addition. Feel free to revert me (I've no expertise in the article content) if you feel more time/confirmation should pass. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no problem, thanks for doing it while I was away. :-) Anyway I'm a bit worried about kosovothanksyou.com still saying about Sierra Leone - "Status: Awaiting Confirmation". I will keep checking that, but for the moment the source provided seems valid for having the edit request approved. Regards, Húsönd 17:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Husond

Beam 18:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Dollfuß vs. Dollfuss

The move discussion at Talk:Engelbert Dollfuß could use some more input. Care to join in? Libary (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	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) 06:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Foolander

Hi

Could you take a look at this post of our "dear friend" PMAnderson and his talking about "Fooland" and "Foolanders" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28use_English%29#GoodDay_or_the_Croatians

I think that this kind of rhetorics is not appropriate, especially for an administrator. --Anto (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Burma/Myanmar

Hi Husond. I see that there is a mediation effort going on for the article title based on the RFC created by WJBScribe. Is this kosher? I thought that the RFC was not in order. Also, it seems that the bureaucrat at the mediation page has pre-expressed a preference for Myanmar. (Here [3].) --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 15:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)