User talk:Haukurth/Archive4

A very important matter for your consideration.

Hi Haukurth, I added two links that I believe to be relevant to "Tarot" and "Rune", but after reading your criteria I realize it may not pass the test. For the Tarot section the page shows several Tarot decks to choose from. The Rune link I placed displays the 25 Runes, which one can click on and obtain a description as well as pictorial view of the stone. We have written permission from various source for the images including US Games Systems Inc. for several of the Tarot decks. There is Google advertising on some of the pages and according to your criteria this may disqualify the site from being listed in the External Links section. I guess that is up to you. Thanks for you consideration! Dan.

re "Cassandra Claire" article -- let's avoid another revert war :)

Hi Haukurth -- just wanted to address the Cassandra Claire edits in a slightly better context than a one-line edit summary. :)

When there was a real Cassandra Claire article, as you'll see in the history and in the discussion page for it, it was vandalized, over and over again, by one or more people who felt it was the proper place to disseminate fandom-specific controversies, rumors, and general vitriol about Cassie; there were a number of edit wars, and in part, the VfD that led to the redirect was an attempt to take away the controversy surrounding the *person* of Cassandra Claire while maintaining the presence of her most well-known work in Wikipedia at all.

I'm a fan of Cassandra Claire's and I think she deserves positive attention, but this seems to be a great example of why fancruft can be a problem -- because it brings fandom people who are otherwise unconnected with Wikipedia in to have fandom-related fights in the form of revert wars and long comments in the discussion page of the article (check out that discussion page; it's a disaster). Although it would be nice for her to have a Wikipedia page that merely noted her accomplishments, that doesn't, at the moment at least, seem possible without a lot of messy controversy and vandalism; I don't particularly want to babysit that article every day and I doubt you do either.

Cassie's first original novel should be released by Simon & Schuster in the first half of 2007, which hopefully will allow her to have a Wikipedia article without any need to have big conversations about what is and isn't fancruft and with enough people paying attention to avoid the vandalism. Till then, it's my opinion that the VSD article is what is going to stay unvandalized (which it has so far). Seriously, check out the discussion page for the Cassandra Claire article and some of the old history, and check out the VfD. This was a /mess/.

I'd like to hear your thoughts; I appreciate what you're trying to do, I just feel like I've been here before and it leads to mess from a Wikipedia perspective and a vandalized article full of defamatory content linked to Cassie's name, which doesn't quite seem to be in her best interests.

Sorry for the length of this, and thanks. Hope to hear back from you. Tromboneborges 12:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment of the situation is almost certainly correct. There was wank when Cassie had an article and in restoring the article we will increase the probability of more wank.

But that's just not a good enough reason not to have an article on her. Wikipedia's job is to distribute knowledge - not to act in the best interests of Cassandra Claire as you or I perceive them. Cassandra Claire is a notable topic and we already have a little article on her. Hiding that article from our readers runs counter to Wikipedia's goals.

I will undertake to babysit the article. I'll have it on my watchlist and as long as I'm active here I'll quickly revert any vandalism. I'll also do my best to ensure that any criticism edited into the article is not disproportional.

If vandalism gets completely out of control - and I don't think that's likely - then Wikipedia has mechanisms to deal with that, such as semi-protection. Look at the edit history of George W. Bush and you'll see some serious action :)

I won't restore the article again while we're discussing this. Let me know what you think. - Haukur 13:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Greetings, Haukurth! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. Your support means a lot to me! If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 07:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-issues & tensions

But prey, why, again and again, do you try to create tensions about non-issues? That you won't do that "again for the day" is hardly comforting. --Francis Schonken 11:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't assign nefarious motives to me. I'm not trying to create tensions, I'm just trying to improve our guidelines. - Haukur 12:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if my changes are such non-issues then why are you fighting them tooth and nail? - Haukur 12:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic article state

You've just removed the "Good article" status from the Gothic article, with the only justification being "I don't feel that this article currently meets the standards of a good article". Could you please elaborate on why you feel that, so that we can improve the article? —Felix the Cassowary 01:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I was acting on a recommendation from the anonymous editor who has been editing the article. This is what he said:

I've just made some small corrections, and rewordings for clarity, to the section on Grimm's Law. Much of this article I'm not qualified to comment on, but it did strike me as surprisingly readable compared to this [1], which rather disturbingly "has been listed as a good article; it adheres to certain quality standards, and may become a featured article." Is there any way to dis-recommend an article, till such time as it gets put right? It really needs a complete rewrite.

Since this person is a linguist whom I have a lot of respect for I glanced at the article, decided he was right, made the edit you're asking about and told him that this is how you can remove a recommendation :) I hope to get back to you with more info later. - Haukur 01:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Höðr

Thanks for making me gifted with "Incisive analysis". I'm just a conservative concerned mostly with the ease of use of this encyclopedia... I'm aware that darn few of those fools would know what an umlaut is, let alone a Ð (I don't even know how to name it in English, being French) but I still believe it wrong to modernize stuff just for the sake of adopting more modern conventions, as those are not applicable to stuff that went out of common use before Edward II was king of britain or Kristofer I, king of Tánmárk. --Svartalf 23:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Þórdís Björnsdóttir

Ég er nokkurn veginn viss um, að mér leiddist kveðskapur Þórdísar átakanlega, en hvað hefir hún unnið til saka að vera í útrýmingarhættu? Til eru miklu ómerkilegri greinar í Wikipediu, sem enginn amast við. Beztu kveðjur Io 19:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ég las þetta aftur og skipti um skoðun, þótt ég sé annars á því, að til eigi að vera greinar um sem flest. Ég greiddi sem sé atkvæði með því að fjarlægja síðuna, aðallega vegna þess, að sá grunur læddist að mér, að þau hjónaleysin hefðu verið að auglýsa hvort annað, eins og ég raunar tók fram á síðunni. Heldurðu, að það geti staðizt? Beztu kveðjur og gleðilegt ár. Io 23:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penpals?

I have always wanted to know an Icelandic person, and I thought maybe we could be penpals. But it wouldn't be to only ask you questions about Icelandic, it would just be what regular penpals write about.Icelandic Hurricane 22:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Háttatal

Sæll!

Fyrst Háttatal Sveinbjarnar Beinteinssonar er nú þegar öllum aðgengilegt á vefnum, ætti þá ekki að vera í lagi að setja það í Wikisource? Beztu kveðjur Io 20:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ég er hræddur um ekki næstu 60 árin eða svo. Ekki nema þú getir haft upp á þeim sem á höfundarréttinn og fengið hann til að gefa þetta út undir frjálsu leyfi. - Haukur 21:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Conventions

Thank you for tewlling me about the vote on Naming Conventions. I see that I missed the vote (I hurt my hand in November); but I acknowledge your sportsmanship in informing me. This is especially kind of you since I continue to disagree with the convention proposed: Most Norse names have English forms, and we should use them unless a clear convention has developed to the contrary, which is very rarely the case. Septentrionalis 21:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR Revert

Sorry. I hadn't realized the original text was important on WP:IAR. A bit like wine I suppose, even if a duplicate is chemically the same, the vintage makes it worth the price tag. I'll create a section on the talk page so we can hammer out a new version (a little more slowly this time). :-) /* Pradeep Arya 10:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) */[reply]

Okay. I added "The Consensus Forge" to the WP:IAR talk page. It's a kind of experiment in forging consensus on an article. Hopefully I'm not laughed off the talk page. :-) /* Pradeep Arya 12:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) */[reply]

Moving the Dragon

Like many proceedural points, this has substantive implications, however. It has now been demonstrated that someone can unilaterally move an article between the Anglicized and Icelandic spellings, and be fairly sure any appeal to WP:RM will result in no consensus. And remember, this works for moves in both directions.

I expect this to happen again. Whatever the merits of the present case, I think this is a bad thing. It means a lot of futile WP:RM discussion, and it will not encourage comity. The way to suppress it is to establish a custom of status quo ante, so that the unilateral move will have no advantage over the proper course: bringing such moves to WP:RM in the first place. Septentrionalis 17:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myth vs. mythology

You left the following message on my talk page:

After some thought, I now support your idea of having a separate myth article if it means we'll be left alone with the academic definition of the word on the mythology article :) - Haukur 17:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reiterated the suggestion (with some modification and clarification) at Talk:Mythology#A_suggestion. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look and offer your thoughts. Cheers. JHCC (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections

That was very decent of you. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote of confidence

Thanks for your vote of confidence. Although my current RFA appears unlikely to succeed, the comments indicate I probably have a pretty good chance if I reapply in a couple of months. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 10:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magnús Jónsson

Ég skal lesa formála Pontus rímna á næstunni og vinza eitthvað úr um æviferilinn. Annars þarf þetta ekki að vera löng ritgerð, aðallega embætti hans (kannski nefna Vopnadóm) og ritsmíðar. Ég get enn um frjálst höfuð strokið, eða þannig, en ég mun ekki hafa ótakmarkaðan tíma á næstunni, þannig að það hillir undir, að allt wikitengt verði íhlaupaverk eins og hjá öðrum. Beztu kveðjur Io 00:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Rfa

So... what sort of beer do you want me to bring for the celebration party we shall have in your honour when you are a newly minted Admin? ;)

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 20:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for your support on my RfA. I am working on icreasing my usage of edit summaries. Let me also take this oportunity to let you know that I have enjoyed the images from the Árni Magnússon Institute you have uploaded. They are a great asset. Dsmdgold 20:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Germanic tribes

Just saw this: North Germanic tribes. Isn't this already covered somewhere? u p p l a n d 11:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article takes a rather unusual perspective. Maybe it should be merged with something else but I'm not sure what. You could try asking dab. - Haukur 11:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also puzzled at the article apparently taking a purely geographic/historic approach to who is North Germanic. Surely Norse languages as a group have enough features to distinguinsh them from the Westic and Ostic tongues to make a linguistic approach valid.--Svartalf 11:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself agreeing with Svartalf here.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 18:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being something of a consistency-fetichist - admittedly ;) - I also find it odd that West Germanic tribes redirects to the "main" article, while the northern branch and the long-lost eastern extension have stubs of their own. Maybe the latter two are seen as peripheral outliers and the western "tribes" are the core? (I do realize that these stubs are not intended to explain the ethnogenesis of contemporary ethnicities or linguistic communities.) //Big Adamsky 13:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question should of course be thoroughly rewritten. One thing I can't figure out why it's in the article is the sentence "Today's North Germanic–speaking people are the Norwegians, Danes, Swedes, Icelanders and Faroese." What's the connection to north germanic tribes here? The listed modern "peoples" are merely the modern national states and autonomities where a north germanic language is the majority language. The modern national states were formed in modern times due to modern political developments, and they don't have much to do with the old tribes. Today the citizens of e.g. Sweden are collectively called swedes, even though there are several ethnical subgroups, like proper swedes/sueones, geats, guts, finns, samis, jamts etc. My main point here is that one over-simplifies in the article in question.

Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 16:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

take it to the talk page

Your show of bad faith is absolutely beginning to get on my nerves. The discussion has been moved to the talk page.--Jimbo Wales 21:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed your comment on the talk page of the CfD when I inserted the closing notice and the comments again. I'm sorry. Please consider using edit summaries, that way people can more easily understand what you're doing :) - Haukur 21:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Needs-verification

Far better, thank you! I'm wondering if I should lose the Wikipede. The normal clean-up boxes are so ugly and unfriendly that I wanted this to be a little different, but maybe it's over the top. - Haukur 17:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I like it; probably some will hate it. I think it works in the context of a non-threatening newbie template. — Matt Crypto 17:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haukur, it works. Particularly in the context of that template. I am with Matt Crypto here in agreeing that it should be retained. :)

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 18:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you pulled it from Club Peugeot UK after I added some links showing the club exists. I think that article is still deletion bait because it doesn't establish notability... ya, the club exists but is it big, influential, has it sponsored events, etc... So I almost reverted your removal! maybe the template needs expansion to address notability as well as verifiability? (or a sister template created?). Also I took your advice and moved {{Adw}} from my userspace. Since it is to be used via Subst, it will be hard to defend if it's brought up as deletable for non usage. I wonder if some hidden text that's searchable is the way to show usage of subst'd things??? Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that some people don't feel notability is a necessary criterion for inclusion which is why focusing on verifiability is usually the way to keep everyone reasonably happy. If you like we can put the template back up with the logic that there still isn't any reputable source verifying the information. I don't know how reputable those websites are. Nice working with you! - Haukur 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is also a key principle, so I'm of two minds here. One is that you're right, and if new users can be gently eased in by addressing one thing at a time, that's goodness. The other is that if a brand new user does their best to address the concerns this template raises but then the article goes up for deletion and gets deleted anyway on notability, it might embitter them badly, they might feel that us busybodies led them astray instead of getting them to fix everything at once, or getting them realise it wasn't worth the bother by pointing out both problems at once. If you see what I mean. I have no idea what the right thing to do is either, I'm just meandering. Hope it helps anyway though. I do like the template! ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point. Squeezing in a link to WP:N might actually be a good idea. - Haukur 20:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like where it ended up... I had gotten a bit carried away (some say I like to hear myself talk... others say I LOVE to hear myself talk... Me, I can't decide. But I digress...) and you tightened it up nicely. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 04:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magnús prúði

Ég jók við greinina og fjarlægði stubbsmerkinguna, en þú mættir gjarnan lesa þetta yfir — ég hefi ekki andagift í meira en barnaskólastíl akkúrat núna. Cheers Io 16:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Og svo?

Við segjum þá Magnús kominn að kalla. En því eru takmörk sett, hve einn maður getur dreift sér, svo að spurningin vaknar, hvort hlýtur forgang, að halda áfram að fylla í skáldatalið eða Wikiheimildina, eða þá hvort tveggja, eftir því sem skap er til. Hefirðu skoðun á þessu? Sjálfur held ég, að Wikiheimildin þurfi meira á okkur að halda. Beztu kveðjur Io 18:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rímnahættir og bragfræði

Greinin um rímur er mjög fátækleg og var af minni hálfu upphaflega hugsuð til bráðabirgða, unz eitthvað betra tæki við. Þetta höfum við rætt áður. Hins vegar þykist ég sjá, eftir því sem ég sökkvi mér meira í þetta, að ekki sé um neinn milliveg að ræða. Annaðhvort verði stutt grein, lítillega lengri en nú er, eða góð úttekt á efninu, og það yrði mjög langt. Þetta má bíða betra tóms um sinn, en hvora leiðina kysir þú? Sjálfur vildi ég gjarnan hafa rækilega úttekt, en mig óar við verkinu, og er auk þess ekki sá sérfræðingur, er ég vildi. Ég hefi annars dritið skilaboðum til þín í dag og ég held að það sé rétt að fara að láta þig í friði í bili. :) Beztu kveðjur Io 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Francs 2000 22:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) - Haukur 23:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congraþulaþions! ;) —Nighþsþallion (?) 23:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankß! Maybe you'll let me help with ßome of thoße moveß :) - Haukur 23:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much become part of my ðaiły routine to cłean 'em up, but sure, if you want to hełp — głaðły! =] —Nightstallion (?) 23:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wów, þiß ïs, łíke, þe nëw łêêt :) - Haukur 23:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I don't remember if I voted, but congrats. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you'll do an excellent job. Stefán Ingi 23:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

| αɱ ρłɛαšɛð þαţ ʏöü < crap, I cannot find the o-ogenek glyph here. What is up with that, eh? ;) > ...αʀɛ ŋöŵ αŋ Αðɱɪŋ! Þɪš ŋëŵ łɛɛţ ναʀɪαŋţ šɧöüłð ɓɛ αððɛð ţö þɛ Μαŋüαł öʄ Ŝţʏłɛ. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 23:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ŷëăʜ, ɪţ'ς ʀəåŀlυ čőőł. ;) —Ņįɣɧτšťɑλļɨøɲ (?) 07:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long overdue, Haukur. Congratulations and best wishes. Chick Bowen 04:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I add my own congratulations to the concert? --Svartalf 07:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! About darn time ;-) — Matt Crypto 08:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belated congratulations. :) I fear this will mean less time for the Wikiheimild. Cheers Io 11:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, at sodding last - David Gerard 16:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the New and Amazing Super-Powers

Congrats, Squee & *knús* :) Arndisdunja 23:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*knús* right back :) - Haukur 23:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic Paganism

Hello Haukurth! I saw that you removed an article that I had placed into the Germanic Paganism category. I questioned the placement myself but added it with some reservations. What do you think should be directly placed into that category? Feel free to remove other items from the category thatyou think should be removed. I have a few points that I think need addressing regarding the category.

I've mainly placed important events, people, subjects and places into the category itself and largely avoided deities unless there's a particular reason they were placed in there in the first place. It was largely empty before I got there. What do you think we should limit to going into there?

Shouldn't Norse mythology be a supgroup of Germanic paganism?

There's a lot that should be done with it and if you'd like to step up and help or if you have any ideas, I'm open.. :bloodofox: 02:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category seems to be pretty much correctly populated at the moment, good job. Norse paganism is, technically, a subentity of Germanic paganism but in practical terms I'm not sure if that's the best classification. - Haukur 23:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tour article

Thanks! Everyking 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)

I, too, am a little perplexed at what's going on at this "guideline". I've left a comment there, you may wish to wade in again. Alai 04:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you, Haukurth/Archive4
	for voting in my RFA. It failed with a result of 31/11/2. Still, thanks for your support. If you have any comments, please say so here.

non-Norse Germanic :)

so I figured... have a look at South Germanic deities, I am unsure whether to include Anglo-Saxon deities under the "South Germanic" umbrella. dab (ᛏ) 15:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the line of division is Nordic / continental Germanic, I would say 'yes.'.

The continental Germanic perception and descriptions of the deities common to both northern and southern Germanic peoples should not be a barrier, for obvious reasons.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 19:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your RfA Support

The RfA page is a rough room! Your appreciation of my "shill" joke was, in turn, appreciated by me. Thx, Adam - --AStanhope 23:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, tell me about it. My first RFA went down in flames too. But my second one succeeded just recently :) Hang on a couple of more months, rack up 2000 edits or so and then get someone to nominate you again (you can ask me to do it and I will if you contributions look good to me). The best thing to do now is to pull your current nomination or you'll just get more "tough love", RFA-style. - Haukur 23:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is pulling it the right thing to do? How should I go about it? Thanks for the help. Which part of London do you live in? --AStanhope 01:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew - thanks for the advice. I'd still love to hear about London, though! Adam - --AStanhope 02:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Award

Could use some help here

Not only is User:Elonka (who was working with the guy accusing you of being one of my five or more sockpuppets) is proceeding with her unrealistic demands to remove everything she objected to on talk pages, but apparently Philwelch is joining in reverting back to her version and locking pages. Just happened on Template talk:Mesopotamian mythology and might move elsewhere. This is absolutely ridiculous. We've got a rogue admin here making up his own rules and going against what multiple admins said on AN/I to support the histrionics of an editor who thinks she runs the place. DreamGuy 19:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that the site from which you got this can probably be trusted in its proclamation that the image is in the public domain, and I know I have little knowledge of copyright laws, but I really don't think it qualifies as being two-dimensional. elvenscout742 21:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how trustworthy the site is :) but I think the image probably would fall under the Bridgeman ruling. - Haukur 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

81.63.124.152

sorry Haukur, that was just me, logged out accidentally :) dab (ᛏ) 20:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darn! I was hoping to get a new scholarly contributor :) - Haukur 21:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

50/50/50

Half the time I agree with you totally, half the time I disagree with vein-popping strength, half the time I have no idea what you're saying. You're either a lunatic or a genius, or perhaps both. Keep up with those good, independant thoughts.
With regard,
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 22:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same to you, I'm happy to be voting for you on RFA. I think we agree on most of the principles even if we don't agree on all the implementation. What's your Erdős number, Mr Mathematician? :) - Haukur 23:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

My admin request went up in flames. (But thanks anyways!)

Hey, Haukurth, I wanted to thank you for your support of my (unfortunately unsuccessful) request for adminship. The final tally was 37/16/5, which fell short of the needed 75-80% for "consensus". I don't know if or when I'll go up for nomination again, but even if I don't, I will try not to betray the trust that you and 36 others were willing to place in me. Thanks for having faith in me... and happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobblewik

I offered to unblock him myself if he stopped making disputed bot edits, and hasn't replied to date, but feel free to do it - I just hope he'll take your advice. Ambi 00:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll go ahead with an unblock and a caution. Thank you. - Haukur 00:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, My Friend

Thank you, my resilience would not be possible without the support of people such as yourself. If you could, please take a moment to look over my petition, and tell others to do so as well. Please feel free to refine the wording of it as you see fit. Karm a fist 13:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ríþenskus

Hello. You may have heard of me before. But I was wondering if you and others could help me modify and improve the constructed language of Ríþenskus. I need people from all the languages in it to help me. This includes Icelandic. Could you please help me? I have the basic declensions set out, but I need vocabulary that sounds genuine. Please answer on my discussion page. Soon.Icelandic Hurricane 21:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of interesting or unusual_place_names

Further to your views on the undeletion, you may be interested that the page was relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination). Regards--A Y Arktos 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look into the 2nd Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names. It appears that the "c. 25 for Overturn/Relist and c. 14 for endorse" outcome of the first wasn't clear. -- User:Docu

Adminship

I appreciate the followup on your admin performance, and that is why I voted to support your Rfa...I saw no evidence that you would abuse your admin tools...keep up the good work, and likewise, if I get out of line, just let me know.--MONGO 06:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you are doing fine. And, please also point out if you find something unusual with my tools as an administrator. Thanks. --Bhadani 15:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 11:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smedskjaer's Law article

I have started a discussion on this article and I invite you to join in a debate about the value of the article. Smedskjaer's_law --OrbitOne 13:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dschor

Sorry, no. Banned means you may not edit Wikipedia. I'm going to reinstate my notice, since he can otherwise claim not to have seen it. He may not edit Wikipedia at all until the expiration of the ban. -Splash^talk 19:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't doing any harm. There is no need to follow the banning policy to the letter. But if you do want to follow it to the letter please consider this part:

It is inappropriate to "bait" banned users, taking advantage of their ban to mock them. Being banned is stressful and unpleasant enough without people intentionally harassing an individual. Indeed, as a general principle, it is unwise to post comments to users who are banned, as they cannot easily reply without breaching their ban. Doing so might encourage them to breach the terms of their ban, which is inappropriate. However, you are free to talk to banned users outside of Wikipedia (for example, by email, or on #wikipedia).

If you want to make certain that he has read your message then you can send him an e-mail.

I did not selectively remove comments from the page, I removed all comments. Haukur 19:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not baiting a user by telling him he is blocked, particularly when that message includes advice to respond since that would extend the ban. It's a bit strange to suggest that I must now warn all the vandals that I summarily ban indefitely by email, and thus reveal my email address to the least savoury people. And yes, there is a need to follow the policy, since otherwise banned users aren't banned and bans aren't useful. We get to having to debate which edits from banned users we are and are not going to allow, and that way lies chaos. Getting yourself banned is very difficult in the first place, and a happending that Dschor could have avoided very easily. -Splash^talk 19:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to notify banned vandals by e-mail. But David is not a vandal. And he can't edit anything except his talk page. And he's not making any objectionable edits there. If he starts making objectionable edits there then protect the talk page. But I can't see any reason he shouldn't be allowed to draft content on (of all things) skiing places in Oregon.

And you don't have to e-mail him at all if you don't want him to have your e-mail address. I've now e-mailed him about this myself so you don't have to worry that he didn't get your message.

Please allow me to archive the comments on his talk page. There's a lot of bad blood there and provocations on all sides which are best off stowed away in the edit history. Someone might see it as inappropriate if David archives the page himself so I told him I could do it. He really just wants to put all this stuff behind him and redeem himself as a productive editor. It's hard. Please don't make it harder than it has to be. Many banned users have edited their own talk pages without serious objections. User:SPUI is a current example. Haukur 21:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You appear determined to lay the blame for Dschor's ban at my feet. How is it my fault that he can't abide by the rules? How is a message telling him he is blocked, given that I do not initiate email communication baiting? How is a message that says he shouldn't reply to it giving him anything but good advice? How is it my fault that he pressed save when he knows he shouldn't? Accusing me of baiting him is accusing me of bad-faith. Can you tell me how enforcing an ArbCom ruling is an act of bad-faith? -Splash^talk 15:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not to blame for David being banned. You are not responsible for him abiding by the rules. Your extending of his block and message on his talk page notifying him of the fact and telling him that he shouldn't reply was unnecessary and unhelpful. His replying to your message was unwise and you are not responsible for it, you are only responsible for your own actions. I'm confident that you're acting from noble motives. Haukur 16:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erdős number

Do you have one? I certainly don't! ++Lar: t/c 23:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxen

For now, I will stop, because I actually have an IRL obligation to go to. I will continue when I get back unless you can give me a good reason not to -- I believe that this is implementing Jimbo's mandate. --Improv 23:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a temporary solution (to keep the changes from wrecking your user page), you can replace {{user template}} with {{subst:user template}} in all of your userboxes. This will copy and paste the code that makes up each userbox FROM the template page TO your userpage. End result will be that once the template is deleted, your userpage will not change. Downside is that when you go to edit your user page the code will be quite spammy. Keep in mind that this is just a temporary solution, as it looks like Jimbo will be going after manually-coded userboxes as well and not just template userboxes. TKarrde 23:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am done with deletions for now (and at least awhile). It's time to let the dust settle, and to let the community make the needed social adjustments. Eventually the political userboxes will have to go too, but I'll leave that for another time (and possibly another person). --Improv 04:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

I have just done a massive refactoring of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to

remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. You're doing a good job. Haukur 09:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date links

Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. bobblewik 20:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]