User talk:Husond/Archive 29
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thank you
|
The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar | |
| Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. |
Your comments on my edits at Invasion of Goa
Regarding this revert of my edit: I would request you to provide a good reason for reverting. Comments such as this: (undid. I didn't bother because you could not accept that your views and arguments were not making any sense to other users) can be considered as a personal attack.
Really, is it a sufficient reason to revert anyones edit? If yes then there is no need to discuss anything on Wikipedia.Every user can claim that the other editor's views were not making sense and revert their edits. Can I similarly say that you are not accepting that your views and arguments are not making sense and revert all your edits? Not condusive to the spirit of discussion and consensus on Wikipedia, is it?
Even after being asked for a good reason you have not bothered to discuss and instead reverted my edit without discussing. I have already pointed out that Wikipedia naming conventions support my claims. You chose not to discuss. I waited for two weeks before making any changes.
Your entire disucssion of the topic is 4 lines; none of which provide anything of substance whatsover. Your behaviour has been to laugh at me or to make caustic remarks. No refs ,No disucssion about the topic itelf. Rather than trying to diffuse the situation and indulge in a healthy debate you have only attempted to provoke the edit war. rather surprising behaviour for someone who is an administrator on wikipedia.--Deepak D'Souza 07:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Invasion of Goa
Hi. I noticed some recent edit-warring there and subsequently the article was protected. I wonder if you would be willing to hold off on the matter of diacritics in place names while a proper discussion takes place on the talk page? If so, I could unprotect the page. Thanks for your consideration. --John (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
King Vitaman
I'm curious. Back on July 10, 2008, one minute after someone correctly changed back the misspelling of the King Vitaman cereal entry from "King Vitamin" -- a name by which the cereal has never been known, as even a simple Google search (particularly an image one) will reveal -- to the correct "King Vitaman," you changed it back to the incorrect "King Vitamin." Why? And why so quickly? That you were eminently and emphatically incorrect cannot be gainsaid. This error has sat on Wikipedia for the last 5 months now, and of course comes up in a Google search. This makes Wikipedia look, well, stupid. Jhw57 (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Understood, particularly the need for patrolling vandalism by anonymous users, your efforts on behalf of which are truly much appreciated. However, changing the article name and the references to that name in the article doesn't strike me as obvious vandalism, simply because it was done by an anonymous user. I realize that in patrolling vandalism, one needs to look for certain earmarks, and that one doesn't necessarily have time to Google something on one's own; but the approach taken is a heavy-handed one that in this instance resulted in the months-long perpetuation of what I view as the worst kind of Wikipedian sin: flat-out incorrectness. Jhw57 (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom vote
If you have not, I'd ask that you take a look a Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Vassyana#Devolution. It may or may not may assuage your concerns. If not, I respect your disagreement. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to look it over and consider it. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
My candidacy
Hey. I think you missed my underlying rationale for that statement in which you opposed me for. I stated that I was not yet ready because if you look at many of the votes of opposition last year, they were opposes of "too new", "not enough experience", "perhaps next election", etc. In fact, there were a good deal of these types of opposes on mine, implying that that was the primary reason for my candidacy's failure. Just thought I'd clarify, because in my case the votes seemed to imply experience being a prime issue. (Of course, this year I have many other issues, but experience is definitely not one of them). Wizardman 21:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
User: Doirocoa
You might find it funny that our mutual good faith editor acquaintance with problematic punctuation (Doirocoa) has actually taken some of my advice, but done it too literally. Instead of putting commas without punctuation, he's taken to putting commas with spaces on both sides. I guess you'll have to rewrite any scripts you wrote up for the task. LH (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy holidays
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!
Best, Risker (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
Yupik would like to wish you a Merry Christmas, a Happy Chanukah, or whatever you may be celebrating at this time of year plus warm wishes for a good 2009!
Hyvää joulua ja onnellista uutta vuotta! Buriid juovllaid ja ráfálaš ođđajagi! Pyereh juovlah já luholaš uđđa ihe! Lahkoe jåvle jih buerie orre jaepie! Buorre javla ja buorre ådå jagev! God jul och gott nytt år! Hyveä roštuota! Hyveä rastavoa! С новым годом! -Yupik (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Unprotection request
Hi there, a page you protected (last) was requested to be unprotected here. As the protecting admin, you are asked to consider the request yourself first. You may of course refer this decision to admins working at RFPP if you wish. Regards SoWhy 21:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've left a note there about this request in hopes you will reconsider it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Honestly, that page? Should be unprotected sometime around the heat death of the Universe.I logged in today for the first time in 2 days and my watchlist was, like, 90% Teletubby-related. Never underestimate the power of a determined troll, I guess. I reprotected for a year; obviously that's open to debate, but...seriously. Look at the log since the semi was removed...it's like >BLAMMO<. GJC 02:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yep...unfortunately, until a way is found to really stop that kid, I think it will have to be like that. He was crowing at getting it unprotected, and went nutty. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Incivility by an editor you had previously blocked
Hello! I noticed this edit from an editor you had previously blocked for incivility. In addition the above cited diff, such edit summaries as this or swearing in posts do not help much either. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
2009 time!
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
| WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I'm posting to note that, following a brief discussion on the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, I have moved the lengthy discussion which resulted from your oppose to the talk page. If you have any queries, please just ask. Warofdreams talk 00:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Husond, I think you need to act and provide some DIFFs - things are going to snowball if you don't. As an admin, you've seen these things happen, and if it gets out of hand, its going to damage your ability to act effectively. I say this as a friend - take the time to find some DIFFs, and quickly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Husond: another reason why there should be a standard desysop process
Even people who agree with your oppose are telling you that your behavior is odious, "character assassination", "petulant", etc. etc. Your only hurting yourself with your stubborn defense of what is poor behavior. That you have now taken away your recall, something many people consider prime to their support for adminship, shows you have difficult with ethics, although your behavior at Eco's RfA that at least six established editors are taking issue with, is enough. This isn't oppose bashing - some of your fellow opposers are incensed at how you are acting. Wake up! --David Shankbone 01:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Open to recall no more
May I ask why you decided to change your stance on this? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- See the above section; a certain group of editors has now decided that opposing an RfA candidate somehow equals abuse of the admin tools. GlassCobra 15:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not addressing that, GlassCobra. I was curious about the decision to remove one of the provisions by which one is selected to be an admin. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm just so very sorry
Please accept it. I still wish you had supplied those diffs (actually, for this reason) or some other evidence, but it appears you were right. I just hope you accept this heartfelt apology for being so dogged with you. I'm just...very upset right now about this entire RfA. --David Shankbone 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Meant to tell you earlier, I apologize for calling you a dick, because it turns out you were dead on. Please accept my apology.--Iamawesome800 Talk 00:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried to ask (maybe more like demand) that people apologize to you because I felt you had been vindicated...but people didn't really care to listen. I didn't speak up for a lot of it but I was in your corner the whole time. Atenciosamente, amigo... Mike H. Fierce! 02:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Ecoleetage
What happened? I can't believe he has done this again. I;ve seen that but I can't see why one edit under Eco 2 was enough to ban him permanently. I can't seem to find what terrible thing he did. I;ve sent an email anyway. It looks to me as if he has over-reacted again and in his actions has blown all excellent opportunities he had. What I find a little hard to take again is that he walked out when the going got tough AGAIN! and wasted peoples time in commenting at the RFA. He should have learned his lesson last time. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently, he harassed someone who (I think?) opposed his RfA - before or after I'm not sure - and was de facto banned since no administrator is likely to unblock after that. Caulde 16:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Sent an email outside of wikipedia contacting him you mean? Mmm thats not a good idea but not grounds for a permanent blocking I think, especially when he is a good contributor. I can see why he might be frustrated and stressed by it, but even if he was banned from becoming an admin because of his weaknesses he should still have the option to return and contribute to the encyclopedia I think. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the permanent link on Eco's userpage is to ANI; if you go a bit further up that revision of the page you can read the full discussion/events. Caulde 17:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yep. Blofeld, when someone is so fake and unstable they should probably not become an admin; and when they contact another user's real life employer and try to have them fired then they should probably not edit anymore. Húsönd 18:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
OMG is that really what he did? How can wikipedia and his job be related? unless this person was editing wikipedia and his boss didn't know at work and Eco contacted his employer out of spite to let him know he wasn't doing his job and get him fired? Wow I find that hard to believe, would Eco really do that? Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's true. Eco contacted the boss of someone who opposed his RfA (another friend of mind) to get them in trouble. Eco has confirmed this both on-wiki and in private correspondence with me and others. We're all very hurt with egg on our face. --David Shankbone 18:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe it. Thats evil man even by my standards! Thats serious shit which could affect the guys livelihood and life. I'm extremely disiappointed in him. I can't believe somebody would be that cruel and mix website like wikipedia with his career. I haven't heard what he has to say about it in all fairness but the fact he requested his account be deleted says something. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
Equatorial Guinea - Portuguese as official language
The only proof I can find of Portuguese having third official language status is here and here. I am fluent in Spanish and searches throughout the internet do not show any other reliable sources to back up the claims. The only other verifications are a short country profile in an Aragonese news-site from Expo 2008[1] and various unreliable blogs. I would contest the information until it can be further verified. It seems strange: not only are there no websites making note of something that was supposed to have happened over a year ago, but also Portuguese is an exceptionally little-spoken language in the country in comparison to others. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
MRDU08
i move article for a new article i am making
Could you just revert them back as (province). Please don't delete the part Province. Your welcome MRDU08 (talk) 6:24, 27 January 2009
Thanks
Thanks for the semi-protect. I also remember you from about 7 months ago because you gave me a barnstar for how quickly I was reverting vandalism using Huggle. Remember? Cheers, Razorflame 19:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
re your comments at RPP for Gary Shaw
Take a look at the IP's talkpage.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Look at his contrib history. His modus operandi is to pop up every few weeks add the blp-violative information to the article. His edits are the only edits to the Gary Shaw article and all he does is add blp-violative information to articles. The fact that he does his vandalism at intermittent occasions should not be a technicality that should warrant ignoring his actions. Obviously, we can continue to revert, continue to add warning templates to his talkpage, continue with rpp requests, and continue with arv requests. But a better alternative is to let editors spend their time at WP doing constructive editing. It's up to you. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Independant Review
Husond, I have an editor calling me a bad admin and accusing me of wikistalking, endorsing wiki stalking. I believe these to be straw man arguments but would appreciate an outside opinion for an editor whose opinion I trust greatly. Can you take a look at the ANI thread and give me some thoughts? Thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the mop! I've started mopping and can see that, if I'm not careful, I'll spend more time cleaning and less time building. There is always a price .....! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 02:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Iceland/EU
Hi Husond. Thanks for taking an interest in the issue I raised about the opening paragraph on Iceland. I had a thought, perhaps being a member of EFTA doesn't necessarily mean that a member state cannot join the EU whilst still being a part of EFTA. Take the Hoyvík Agreement, well that's a separate free trade organisation to which Iceland belongs. Although its sole partner is not strictly speaking a country, I would have thought that no conventions would forbid any country from sharing a set of values and codes with another set of states; not unless the two organisations are radically opposed such as both pre-1990 EFTA and the EEC with the former COMECON (Warsaw Pact lands). Sadly, apart from names and members, I know very little about the internal functions of these blocs!! Do you have any thoughts on this? It might just be as good an idea as any to leave the page exactly as it stands. Evlekis (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- All done. Huyvík mentioned. Feel free to rephrase it if you wish. Cheers. Evlekis (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Personal Notacks
It was a joke, chill. It was a total LOLacaust haha. Furthermore I don't user wP anymore or this account. Have a good day man. Peace. PS I love you to Husond :). Ari d'Kosova (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Eurozone = Euro Area
OK then. Next time I will request the move in WP:RM. Regards. Tugaworld (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hostile?
Your user page says you are friendly. But you seem quite hostile in the way you word things--almost like you are taking shots at other editors who have a different point of view. Also, if you really can't stand that English doesn't normally use diacritics, no one is forcing you to edit English wikipedia. Using the word "abolitionist" to describe the other side of the coin shows a lot of ignorance (sorry for my own off-coloured wording). Look, English wikipedia is for the layman and the most common usages in English are supposed to be the norm. Rarely in written or printed text are diacritics found. The only time that diacritics seem to have any frequency in normal written English are when French or, more recently, Spanish words are used. So, my question is, why would "pro-diacritic" people want to force diacritics on English when they are not normally there? Because it is wrong without them? No, sorry, that is not true. In English, it is not wrong to omit diacritics and it doesn't change the pronunciation. Maybe in Swedish or Polish or Spanish it is wrong, but it makes no difference in English. English does not spell English wrong. You made comments like you need diacrtics to pronounce the word correctly. Well, if you hadn't noticed, English spelling is so messed up that sounding out words is almost useless anyway. I would hazzard a guess that over 95% of layman English readers have no idea how most diacrtics affect pronunciation and so diacritics are almost useless in English. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the way English is most commonly written. So, please keep off-colour remarks like "ignorance" and "abolitionist" to yourself when describing people who are trying to have Wikipedia reflect the way English is actually written, not the way you want it to be written. Masterhatch (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
3RR on Novak Djokovic
Please keep in mind that you have just made a third revert on Novak Djokovic. One more revert and you may be blocked. Please join the discussion on the article's talk page. Aecis·(away) talk 15:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Questionable Warning
Husond, you have been taking part in the Djokovic discussion for a while, so you know how contentious it is. Edits such as this one are highly disruptive in the middle of a move request. Slapping my wrist for reverting it is quarrelsome, to say the least, and unfitting of an administrator. I hope this does not continue. --Yano (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Small favour
Husönd, I accidentally created the Aymeric picaud page with a typo that I spotted too late - it should have two caps. Every time I try to create a page for Amyeric Picaud with two caps to move it to, it redirects me. Help please, I don't know what to do! Akerbeltz (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Smile!
A NobodyMy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
- Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
- An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
- News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
- Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
- Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
- Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Antônio Carlos Jobim
Hi! Just so you know, I added a comment for you over at Talk:Antônio Carlos Jobim. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
- Books extension enabled
- News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
- Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
RM closes
Hi. I'm just dropping off a link to a bit of research I started last year, in the context of a naming dispute involving diacritics. User:GTBacchus/RM closings. It appears I was nearly done formatting it, as of the last edit I made last May. Somewhere I've got a link to a discussion where we did a little bit of rough analysis. Maybe this is a good time to dust off this project. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
- News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
- Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009
— 16 March 2009- News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
NowCommons: File:Škocjanske jame inside 4.JPG
File:Škocjanske jame inside 4.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Skocjanske jame inside 4.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Skocjanske jame inside 4.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- File:Škocjanske jame river Reka entrance.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Skocjanske jame river Reka entrance.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello
Me and Bazonka have given Biblbroks warnings about disruptive edits and how to conduct controversial edits such moving articles and renaming articles ect, but he doesn't listen and continues to be disruptive. Can you please tell him again in a more authoritative manor. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Question
I've tried to suggest a new - slightly faster - way of dealing with the mess on the Basque people page (see [[2]]). It's a mess and getting messier, people keep adding random people to it. The approach I suggested has merit I think but there has been a deafening silence on the talk page. Any idea how best to approach this? I there a wiki procedure for dealing with such a page split/move when the reaction has been this ... quiet? Cheers. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Move warning over Teitur Thordarson
User:Husond You should not have moved the page Teitur Thordarson to Teitur Þórðarson after a decision by a closing administrator (Aervanath) of a WP:RM.[3] If the page is moved back and you do that again without the consent of the moving administrator, I will block your account for disruption. If the decision by Aervanath had been the other way around and someone had moved the page from Teitur Þórðarson to Teitur Thordarson I am sure you would have complained about such a move -- "What's source for the goose is source for the gander". --PBS (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- "... and even if he hadn't agreed it would still be perfectly valid for me to move back." No it would not. --PBS (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
: 23 March 2009
- From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
- Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
- News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
regarding discussion on User talk:Ijanderson977 page
I have posted some responds regarding forementioned discussion on the very own page of editor User:Ijanderson977. Since it could be considered, that it is more of his personal page, than anyone else's, he could mind if we try to keep a centralized discussion there. For the moment I have no idea on how to relate to this matter, but perhaps you could think of some alternative to exchanging opinions between us and continue the discussion.
- All the best, Biblbroks's talk 14:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)