User talk:Husond/Archive 27

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.

La Guerra Gaucha

Hi I';ve begun work on La Guerra Gaucha which is a featured article on spanish wiki. Could you help me translate the article? You haven an advanced command of spanish right? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool. If you could work on it gradually this would be great!! Have a good break!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Are you still up for translating? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Personnel attack

Hello. I have just received a personnel attack from User:Jakezing, see here. I was wondering what should be done about this as it is not acceptable behavior on wikipedia. Thanks Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I warned him as you suggested and i have received further hostility from him (see here), so he has once again violated WP:CIVIL, after i warned him. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

my incivility surprises you? read through the cody6 talkpage before the last time i wipped it, i;v been banned before :D--Jakezing (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Galiza x Galicia

I can find several "in Brasil" with Google, mostly by brazilians, but that does not change its English name from Brazil.--68.33.170.109 (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Show sources that use Galiza and are not misuse by foreigners.--68.33.170.109 (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As you said: "Galicia" is a well-established, well-known only English variant for that region (usage of "Galiza" in English is therefore a typo or merely bad knowledge of the correct name).--68.33.170.109 (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks

As one of the editors on International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence you are aware of the situation there. Well User:Mareklug has opened a new section on talk page of that article singling me out and attacking me left and right without any base in a large piece of text. He previously received a block on commons for heavily insulting me and others but he is doing it again. Is this really per Wikipedia rules? That anyone can take some unfounded accusations and throw them at another user even with history of being abusive towards other editors? Also he is bumping up old discussions for which he disliked the final conclusion. I remember reading on Wikipedia rules that bringing up the same thing on and on until the desired consensus is reached is not welcome. He is also making things up (this just an example of why it is a slander, because he is making things up and attaching them to my back) by saying how no one in Bosnia made a reaction while three out of three presidency members and prime minister reacted. Obviously the article is called "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" not "Official documents adopted worldwide regarding the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" which means we are using statements not only official acts. He previously said how I never added anything "pro-Kosovo" to the article which I swiftly proved to be wrong. He also claimed how I was "skewing" the quotes in the article (when asked to point at a single letter I changed he couldn't do it). I am asking for the immediate protection as it is getting unbearable (usually admins get scared away by his pointy text blocks and don't want to interfere and this allows him to get away with it but I hope this time it wont happen). Thank you --Avala (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

i decided to give them the advice i gave to tocino, leave the article, take a break from eachother and kosovo/serbia related pages, tocino didnt listen and hes banned, really i draw the line when mark decides to have a entire talk page section dedicated to why one user sucks.--Jakezing (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not intend to make any more statements on this issue, having replied on user:ChrisO's talk page to his request for documentation, what with the matter having been adequately summarized, and multiple responsible administrators' eyes and comments having being drawn to the problem. But user:Avala is clearly distorting here, lobbying to have me banned for "personal attacks", instead of addressing serious objections made (and documented) on the merit (rather, lack of it) of his edits.

Contesting edits on lack of their merit is not making personal attacks, or saying someone sucks, Jake. Yes, many of Avala's edits are highly questionable. And so I question the edits. Likewise, Avala should argue for his edits on their merits, each one, not attempt to discredit my character with hyperbole about my being banned for insulting him and other users, when we were both punished for 3RR over his original research on Commons' maps. And I am not the only one objecting -- the voluminous archives of the article's talk page are strewn with objections to Avala's lack of impartiality in his edits made in this article.

First, I would like to note, that I took user:Jakezing's opinion at face value, and chose to abstain from further edits on Kosovo articles for the time being. If user:Avala were to do likewise, we would have instant deescalation, while surely the Wikipedia process would take care of the article content without us, esp. now with expert user and admin user:ChrisO having declared readiness and willingness to examine the evidence.

Unlike Avala, I do not think myself indispensable to writing this article. However, the present edge of conflict reflects chronic editorial abuse of this topic by Avala, which is why the situation has become "red lights", in words of user:DaQuirin, used on the same talk page. DaQuirin is an impartial editor, who still has deemed it necessary to make the same allegations of pro-Serbia bias in Avala's edits, even just now (and earlier, archived).

I left a methodology précis on user:ChrisO's page, that I would ask you, Húsönd, to also take part in, to investigate the merits of what I have alleged. This situation is serious, and reflects long term misconduct by user Avala. It is not a matter of my insulting, libeling, or slandering him, or of him being a victim of a stalking, unreasonable user (me) with a history of abusing others. We have a faulty body of work here, systematically generated over months by Avala, over great objection of other editors, me included.

It is poetic justice, that Avala should make his complaint here, claiming that he was baselessly maligned when it comes to misquoting sources: It was the protagonist of this talk page, Húsönd himself, none other, who translated, at my request, the Portuguese-language source Avala had found and used for Brazil (still in the article; never mind English issue by the Foreign Ministry it quotes!). In that case, Avala paraphrased the content and manufactured a nonexistent quote, which he then ascribed to the Brazilian Foreign Minister as his personal quoted utterance. And so it was for a long time in our article -- but such is not the case in the Brazilian source itself that Húsönd translated. This unjustifiable, blatant fabrication persisted in the article space, defended by user:Avala and user:Tocino for a very long time. This transgression alone suffices to justify auditing the body of Avala's edits on international Kosovo reaction ascribed by him to states.

I also draw your attention to an egregious incident involving his early edits on the subject of Armenia's reaction, where the quoted minister's say was abridged when quoting by Avala, thus changing the meaning completely. On the basis of this altered sourcing, Armenia was portrayed by Avala as having officially rejected Kosovo's independence, which of course historically was never the case, and could not be just an editing mistake: the pattern of skewing the world reaction pro-Serbia is a constant vector in Avala's "interpretations". Although he does from time to time add factual information, such as in the case of Macedonia recognizing Kosovan passports. But that is hardly an avenue that allows free interpretation, unlike the cases of Cuba or Bosnia or Uruguay. I fixed Armenia's writeup when new information became available and an old quote could be simply superseded, eventually.

When complaints, serious complaints, are made about an editor's systematic bias and particular wrongful edits -- as I have been consistently making -- for example, pointing to the Commons maps (Image:Kosovo_relations.svg and Image:Kosovo_relations.png) that Avala authored to reflect the English Wikipedia article's content, where map colors cannot be reconciled with what the article states, never mind what reality shows through actual sources, this is no personal attack.

Please investigate this matter closely. Avala is an experienced editor with over 10k edits to his name on this Wikipedia, and a status of an administrator on Serbian Wikipedia, and I simply am outraged, that a person with such a long Wikipedia experience and one in a position of responsibility on a Wikimedia project, has proved unable to edit impartially, and when challenged on this score, is resorting to distorting persuasion and lobbying behind my back on various administrator's pages and notice boards to silence me by creating a biased picture of events -- instead of just fixing his edits.

This article, in its present state, is unacceptably biased toward Serbia, without sources bearing this out by themselves, almost wholly as a result of concerted synthesis by user:Avala (with some help from user:Tocino).

When I asked that he let the community decide the merits of my accusation, he engaged in reductio ad absurdum, painting a picture of "kangaroo court" while painting ridiculous counter-factual along the lines "I could say Mareklug wipes out the Main Wikipedia page daily...".

This is sophistry, avoiding the argument on its merits, not consensus building or taking responsibility for one's edits. It is not refuting the assembled evidence, or allowing the community process to work its way through this controversy.

In closing, unlike Avala, I do not hold myself above the community's assessment, which is why I complied with Jakezing's request to take a wikibreak from things Kosovo and confronting Avala. Which I can do now, what with my case having been made plainly and cogently, after months of abuse, now that the eyes of several administrators and experts on the Balkans are on the page. Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 10:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

---

OK (even though I disagree that accusing someone without any proof is not a libel) but I still want that removed from the talk page of the article as it is unrelated personal attack. Since when is it allowed to open a new section with calling a name of another user in the title and then proceeding with a lengthy rant full of unfounded accusations? I know it's not allowed so therefor I am asking you to move the discussion on Mareklug's talk page or hopefully fully remove it. Thanks, --Avala (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Avala, but a discussion about the behavior of an editor is quite pertinent to the talk page of an article he's been editing. Removal of the thread is therefore inappropriate unless there's an agreement by both parties for that removal. It's not a personal attack or libel. Anyway I will get back to this later today and likely drop by at ChrisO's. Please try to calm down and not to take accusations too personally. All of you. Húsönd 13:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a discussion, he is making things up to make me look bad. He was blocked for insulting me before and he was also making it up how I was changing quotes but couldn't prove it. Just like he can't prove that I am doing OR because I am not. So are you suggesting that I could for an example open in any article you edit on talk page "User:Husond - adding unreferenced data, POV pushing and page blanking followed by breaking 3RR" and that it would be normal and OK? Not only that it would be NOT OK but it would be very offending because it would be defamation of you so anyone uninvolved would think (if he doesn't really get into the matter to find out it is all imagination) "Oh look at this Husond guy, he is a vandal" and unproductive because it wouldn't add anything to the article just cause fighting. His primary example is how no one from Bosnia has reacted "government has not uttered an offical governmental word on this" while we have statements from 3 presidents and prime minister in total 4 (four) reactions. If that is not intentional defamation of myself what is? He also used to claim how Cuban MFA is so active and that there is no reason not to look there for Cuban reaction but when we opened a website it turned out that they publish one statement per year in average. So to conclude - he lied and is going to get away with it. I am just wondering what would have happened if I opened a section with such gross pointless lies. I would never do that but I am wondering. --Avala (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"User:Husond - adding unreferenced data, POV pushing and page blanking followed by breaking 3RR" would be an okay title for a talk page discussion (although titles are preferably much shorter). The community will then comment on the behavior of this random user, Husond. No big deal. If the accusations are unwarranted, then the community will be quick to dismiss them (effectively discrediting the accuser), or corroborate them if they are correct (proving that the discussion was pertinent). In any case, useful. I fail to identify any defamation. On Wikipedia, everyone is accused of this or that every now and then. And you always have the chance to defend yourself (and will likely have others defend you too if the accusations are ill-founded). Uninvolved users being shocked by the sight of someone being accused of something, and believing in those accusations right away without verifying them, are hardly of any concern. My view: no big deal. Just reply to the accusations as you would reply to any other comments. Húsönd 03:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you'd hjave the same replies as what tocino got, and i'd give the same messag,e but im guessing you would have a tougher position since i'd be basicly us against 1 user...--Jakezing (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Cuba's Ministry of Foreign Affairs maintains its website in Spanish and English: http://www.cubaminrex.cu/ Contrary to Avala, the English main page shows up-to-date content with multiple articles from July 26 (national day of Cuba) and July 27 (Nonaligned Nations meeting). But the gist of the content is in Spanish. Avala's alluding to the English "Statements" section (judging from what he linked to previously when making this accusation on the article talk page, since archived), which indeed was not as up-to-date as its Spanish equivalent, "Declaraciones". In fact, I just looked, and the "Statements" is entirely gone -- a 404 error. Does this mean tht to Avala Cuba's MFA has disappeared from the web? :) Since Avala was appraised of the Spanish-languge Declaraciones being updated more frequently -- in a discussion on our article's talk page -- who exactly is lying here, or skewing reality to his point of view? Isn't chronic skewing reality in edits the gist of my complaint? How is any of this personal attack? How is it making accusations without merit? What about Brazil, Armenia foreign minister misquoting, documented by me above? Is this also "pointless lies"?

As for Cuba, a Google search of both the Spanish and English portions of the site (or the entire site) reveals no statements on Kosovo. However, this Spanish-language reflection by Fidel Castro from 21 June 2007 (last year!) is the only published-as-MFA-content page statement re: Kosovo. Therefore it constitutes an official source of official Cuban position and is evidence that Cuba is capable of making such. Instead, Avala and Tocino chose first a Spanish-language account, then, when it disappeared from the web, a Catalonian-language account of Fidel editorializing in Spanish in a private webmagzine, in February 2008. Here is the link to the official Castro say on Kosovo from 2007: http://www.cubaminrex.cu/FidelAbsueltoHistoria/Articulos/Reflexiones/Comandante/2007/2007-06-13.html . It also shows great command of detail and of significance of Kosovo in terms of mined raw materials to Serbia, and keen awareness of what is going on internationally. And, that when it suits Cuba, the MFA does publish Castro's journalism on its official pages as its own material, and then, we can with some measure of justification, call the whole thing "Cuban state reaction", as opposed to private musings of an influential Cuban made in private space. Most importantly, it shows that no such content exists in 2008, following the declaration. Official silence. So I ask -- how can some of us persist in lying in Wikipedia (and on Wikimedia Commons), that Cuba officially has rejected Kosovo's declaration of independence? The neighboring St. Kitts MFA clearly provided us with a source (used in the article) that states, no regional MFA ("Caribbean state", they wrote) has made any representation on the subject, for or against.

Once again, are my complaints personal attacks, or are they documented with evidence justified complaints of systematic editorial miscounduct, both in debate and in main space edits? Is Avala being a good editor on Kosovo? That is what I asked the community to decide, and if necessary (and I think it is), correct Avala-created content on Wikimedia projects. --Mareklug ^talk 00:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I wish you would keep this shorter and simpler... As I've said before, I find acceptable Mareklug's starting of a discussion targeting the actions of a specific user. Húsönd 03:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

--

Deletion review for Hollywood Undead

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hollywood Undead. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Killeroid (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays no wikiying

OK take care of yourself and have a nice holiday amigo!!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS

Please read this guideline before you reference it; it prefers posts that are limited (I have done one), neutral (I have tweaked), in a non-partisan environment (both sides can comment; neither has bothered), and open (I signed the post, right here in public).

Neither side has bothered to edit the recall page. This is another tempest in a teapot.

If you can explain which words you object to, and on what grounds, I will amend further; but my judgment remains: I no longer have confidence in you, am deeply disappointed in you, and think you should not be an admin. When you make arguments based on evidence, instead of fervor for the Latinity of the rune thorn, I will be glad to change that judgment; but I require, as elsewhere, evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Reminder about Fred Roti

You are receiving this message because you are listed as the protecting admin for Fred Roti. The page has been semiprotected for longer than 2 months without an expiry date set. Because Wikipedia relies on contributers to make the encyclopedia, I'm asking you to review your decision and either

• Unprotect the page if protection is no longer needed, or
• set a reasonable expiry date for the protection instead of leaving it on forever

I hope that you will do one of the two in order to reduce the backlog of pages that have been semiprotected for very long period of time. Thank you. -Royalguard11(T) 19:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Why am I receiving this message?

VRSA

I'm sorry you took offense at my edit on vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus‎. I removed the hatnote because I had turned VRSA from a redirect into a disambiguation page. As a result, the hatnote is unnecessary. Again apologies if that wasn't clear. JFW | T@lk 19:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings. All the best. JFW | T@lk 20:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

NATO flag

The permission for the NATO flag does not correspond with the NATO website. Apparently we can use the image, as wikipedia is not commercial. Can you please review the usage/ copyright of this flag properly please. Thanks Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ive brought it up at the help desk. Thanks again Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Georgia

Talk:Georgia is turning into a battleground over what article should be under the title [Georgia]], when ultiamtly, the only NPOv way is to leave it all as it is, could you, or another admin/whatever step in and help end this, because i already decided being civil in the article won't be getting anybody to listen. I told them to forgo all the namking rules of wikipedia and leave it. they aint listining. I suggest a protect on georgia to keep any possible edit warring if this goes to far and admin intervention, this is just rediculess.--Jakezing (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I think we need a decleration on whats going on, because were not getting anywhere in voting, and even if we do move it, we'll deal with crap about moving it back or to the state ect. We need a definitive answer from a admin now hudson, best option is to leave it as it is, to keep the "america is the center of the world" people and the "georgia(country) is more important" people from getting pissed at it being moved.--Jakezing (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern image of Norway/Oslo

Hi, you gave me a message a while ago, concering a modern image of Norway. I didn't have a user name back then. Just wanted you to know that I have added a new comment on Talk:Norway under Modern Image, would like you to give your views? Like I've already said, I'm not very good at all this Wikipedia editing business, and I don't know what's required concerning rights etc. I would have taken a picture myself, but I don't have a camera with satisfying quality :p Espenhs (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't originally have a picture, I just tossed the idea to add a new picture out there. It was the first part under Modern Image in Talk:Norway, which you responded to. You gave me a message to me then, but I didn't have a username so it was sent to the talk page for my IP adress, and I was unable to find the link to it now. I hope that even made sense. Espenhs (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

America, Brazil

Hi. I have a challenge for you. Could you help translate this article into english? Its been on my to-do list for months. I;ve been hoping to get a few editors to help get it into english. The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I know. It is a very detailed article isn't it. Just tackle a paragraph or two when you can. I 've asked a few others to help as I believe it is a lot for one editor to take on alone but once completed will be of major benefit. I saw it on my travels and thought, I;m not letting that one get away form us and us being stuck with a stub! Regards The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 31	28 July 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2008 wrap-up	WikiWorld: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Unblocked in China	Dispatches: Find reliable sources online
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 32	9 August 2008	About the Signpost

Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia	WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy"
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July	WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 33	11 August 2008	About the Signpost

Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential	Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase	WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies	Dispatches: Reviewing free images
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 34	18 August 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Help wanted
WikiWorld: "Cashew"	Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article
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) 06:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

yeah, sure but

why didn't you just delete the 2008 part? right now the grammar in the title is wrong Nergaal (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

how does "International recognition of Portugal independence" sound to you? Nergaal (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to circumvert this issue by using the name you reverted. Nergaal (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia

I have seen that you also had a look on Georgia an article that is likely prawn to reproduce all the senseless discussions that Wikipedia has seen this year on the Serbia and Kosovo articles. Certainly, we have to keep track with the course of world politics and I appreciate that the article needs to change after Russia endorsed the independence of two already de facto independent states. Equally certain, the final NPOV solution will of course not be image:Europe_location_GEO3.png in the Georgia infobox. I do not want to say where this all is going, but I think the article and the discussion needs an administrator to look after.

Specifically, I have already reverted the installation of the above map twice today. Hence, I am not allowed to change its current status any more. User: Xizer, however, has already changed this file in the infobox three times today. Perhaps, that is a good starting point to remind the editors that the upcoming discussion will be difficult and requires tolerance and friendliness to succeed. And that at least 3RR should be respected by everyone. Tomeasy _{T C} 14:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, after one more iteration, I have the same problem. This whole trouble does not appear surprisingly, it was to be expected. How do you think we should deal with this? Would it be helpful to point to similar cases Serbia or Cyprus? How can we avoid that the discussion drifts into geo-politics, accusations, policy-violations, and loss of focus on the article; because that's why I expect is likely to happen. Tomeasy _{T C} 15:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Várias coisas

Olá Husond! Vejo que tens várias contas em várias wikis com o teu nome. Não sei se todas serão tuas, mas talvez te interesse teres um login unificado. Escrevo-te não só para te dar esta informação, mas também com interesse próprio... Não quererias dar uma vista de olhos nas discussões que estou a ter sobre a inclusão ou não do Império Português nos mapas do Império Espanhol (devido ao período da União Ibérica), na linha aliás do que foi abundantemente discutido em Talk:Spanish Empire, nos Commons (em Commons:Image talk:Imperio español.png, Commons:Image talk:Spanish Empire(Total Expansion).jpg, Commons:Image talk:Spanish Empire.png e Commons:Image talk:Spanish colonization of the Americas.png), e em es:Discusión:Imperio Español, gl:Conversa:España e ca:Discussió:Imperi Espanyol. Só se estiveres para isso, claro. Abraços! The Ogre (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

SIm, as discussões são exactamente sobre o que disseste. São mais fortes, hoje, nas páginas das wikis mais do que nos commons. Abraços! The Ogre (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Troy 08"

Hey Husond! This looks like either a cruel joke or some coincidence. Excuse my snobbiness (lately, I've been dealing with a guy with several socks used as spares for block evasions even though they didn't have contribs at a certain point). Should I ask for a checkuser to see who's behind this, or am I going way out of line as my conscience is telling me? ~ Troy (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I guess I was a little needlessly concerned, but in either case, I'll hopefully know what the issue is. Simply, if something happens, I will contact a trusted admin (like you) or ask for a checkuser. Of course, I know the drill (it probably won't be as serious or related to this issue). Also, on ANI, I was talking it over with User:Caknuck about a rangeblock (I'm not quite good with how rangeblocks should be set, but I gave him a tool to help out). As you can see near the bottom of his talk page, the rangeblock appears to have one or two setbacks, I think that at least one of the IPs should be unblocked. Caknuck told me it was his first rangeblock, so it certainly looks as though there was nothing wrong on his part (you may verify this if I'm wrong). Also, I greatly appreciate your advice on this. I'll try my best on making the right choices should anything disturbing happen. Kind regards, ~ Troy (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: this has been discussed here in advance of the rangeblock. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course. I'd hate to be the one who blocks millions of people. The IP should be unblocked by someone and Caknuck should try to avoid blocking large ranges if he does so in the future (I honestly feel that he is not to blame; he did discuss it and requested for a checkuser before doing it). I guess he could ask someone from village pump or something of the sort. ~ Troy (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Xizer

Hi Husond.

I saw that you blocked user:Xizer recently for violating three revert rule. Also, you are probably very familiar with the nature of edits he/she makes.Therefore, I would really love if you could pay a close attention to what he does. He keeps removing referenced maps and other legitimate materials. However, the most amazing thing is that after I reverted his radical, irrelevant edits he posted this[1] on my talk page, accusing me of violating three revert rule. I am not an admin and I cant counter all that he does.Just take a look at Georgia (country) article history, only on August 30 he reverted around six times if not more. My e-mail is full of threatening message.Its tiresome.--Satt 2 (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Page semi-protection

Hi there...

You competed a page semi-protection on Big Brother 10 (U.S.) just over a week ago. That protection has expired and the anons are back. I have re-requested the protection on the WP:RFP page. I do not know if it is appropriate to just come ask you to extend it or not. The show ends Sept 16th and wonder if it can be re-applied until then. Thanks.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Satt 2

Please look at the changes made by Satt 2 on 31 August-1 September 2008 in CIS. Since this is a hotly disputed and debated issue in the article, I reverted them, but he may come back with repeats if he is not brought to order. Please advise what to do. Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is unbelievable. I came up with this message while trying to leave something on user Zlermans talk page.I read the discussions on the CIS page and I did not find any serious argument. The country has left the organization and is not a member any more.Why do they insist? I don't know who this user is but I have been already accused of "nationalism". On the talk page there are several opinionated messages half of wich belong to Zlerman himself, I dont know if thats what they call a "hotly disputed" discussion.Their edits are politically motivated. user:Russavia even stated that he reverted my edits because he does not care what Saakashvili (Georgian presidenet) thinks. It is surprising that someone would mention Georgian president while reverting edits as I never mentioned him or the russian president before. Politics should have no place on wikipedia when it comes to being impartial.

For your information Husond,everyone knows very clearly who engages in edit warring and who is not. Just because I reverted someone once or twice does not mean I am edit warring. I think people should keep their personal opinion to themselves when editing the articles. Regards--Satt 2 (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content dispute

Hello Husond! Sorry for all of the questions, but shouldn't the above link redirect to Wikipedia:NPOV dispute? Just making sure. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thank you Ijanderson (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you see "User:Ijanderson977/Insult" again, you will see that i have recorded further insults ect. I will continue to record all insults by that user. Thanks. Ijanderson (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I will do. I think its unfair that he is picking on this new German user. Im going to watch out for Jakezing. Ijanderson (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Tabbouleh

Please look at the latest edits in Tabbouleh by User:67.80.174.252 (since September 2). We have blatant violation of WP:Civil and signs of edit warring. Could you step in, please? Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the instantaneous and effective response. I know that at least one person (User:Macrakis) will be much relieved. Best, --Zlerman (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for nominating me to become an administrator! Will you add mine to the main RFA page, or would like me to do it? Your nomination actually made me blemish :-) SchfiftyThree 02:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jim Ogonowski

Please note that I redirected this page per the consensus at this AFD. Please don't undo the redirect; use Wikipedia:Deletion review if you wish to challenge the outcome of the discussion. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Stifle. As you can see in the revision history of this article, it was User:WillowGrove who undid your turning it into a redirect. I was simply fighting vandalism with Huggle and his edit appeared like a removal of an AfD notice so I reverted it. But after noticing what he was doing elsewhere, I thought that perhaps I should undo my own edit and leave the case for someone else who knew better what the user was doing. Thus, it might have looked to you that I undid your edit, but in fact I simply undid my edit, which undid WillowGrove's edit, which in turn undid yours. Odd? ;-) Regards, Húsönd 14:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Thanks for the reply and apologies for any confusion. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ballsinmymouth

Hey Husond! Just here to notify you of the above user. I feel that he/she should be blocked outright for, well, obvious reasons. He/she only has one edit, but I've seen this too many times now and it looks as though we shouldn't be taking any chances. ~ Troy (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad that's over with. Regards, ~ Troy (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

can i

call it vandalism if he keeps editing my talk page after i;v told him to stop?--Jakezing (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You did the right thing

In regards to your vote for Shifty even though your nom. That takes a lot of heart and i know with this you have the project in mind and the editors best interest. Whatever happens to the vote, i know that you being the editor you are, you will give him the support he needs to become a better editor and maybe an administrator in the future. You could have kept quiet and let it slide but you did the right thing. Shifty seems to be a nice guy and however the RfA goes, im sure he'll be fine in the future and it will only make him a better editor. Cheers Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 13:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hej!

Hur mar du, min (mit?) van? Utan Vax (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nej, min flickvan ar (I only know the pronunciation for this next word:) frawn/fraun Enkoping pa Sverige. She teaches me Swedish basically. When/How did you learn? :-) Utan Vax (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That's nice. How long did it take you to become fluent? I can't wait for the day when I can read Swedish newspapers. It's probably easier for you as all Nordic languages are related! I find Swedish difficult; pronouncing the number 7 has caused many a laugh from my partner. Oh well, I'll get there! Utan Vax (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because a language is related does not majke it simpler to learn. English is a germanic language, but its hard to learn.--Jakezing (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello! I just wanted to pass along my apology for disappointing you in my train wreck of an RfA (there is a scrap metal sale going on now, if you're interested). I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kohuept (sic)

For goodness' sake, this is an embarrassment of the first order. What do you think ought to be done about it? This abomination wasn't even the requested move. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a head;s up - international reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo

Húsönd, greetings.

Just a head's up: you or someone with administrative capacity may have to intervene here soon. Edit summaries like this: diff 1 and diff 2, or not using any, while making a massive amount of successive editing on a controversial topic, and doing it badly, is IMHO worthy of addressing. Especially so, when the user in question is singlehandedly remvoing NPOV improvements made by more than one other editor, and when his unintellegible work is rolled back as disscussed on the talk page (how else?). Then, he makes baseless accusations of vandalizm, because the roll-back necessarily included some minor fixes which were housekeeping in nature and not critical and can always ve fixed later. And now, we have the "vandalism" accusation enshrined in the edit summary, again.

Húsönd, I know we are talking about a difficult case here, and this editor has over 11k edits on the Wikipedia, and is a admin on another. Nonetheless, you should either help edit this mess to finally make it NPOV, or refer the matter administratively to ArbComm. Enough is enough, and disruptive is disruptive. Kind regards, --Mareklug ^talk 20:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Húsönd, thank you for your kind reply. Protecting the article, when we are finally mustering concerted multi-editor effort to fix the longstanding POVisation of it, would be most unwelcome. Since you can't take part in regular editing, and be an administrative overseer at the same time, would you consider lending your editorial expertise on Balkans and international politics as a regular editor, and help in the process directly? As well as, now as an administrator, simply alert other administrators, who have no interest in editing Kosovo, to watch the article? Finally, can't the chronic editing conflict and all the past reports of Avala's disruption be grounds enough for a CommArb review of this issue? You wanted proof of disruptive edits and bad faith -- please revies the accrued reverts in the last 48 hours by all editors. You will discover everyone working to the same end, with one notable exception (albeit Avala has made other edits on noncontroversial nature). And please read the text by Avala contributed immediately south of this reply just now. Avala has twisted a perfectly lucid complaint into nonsense, something about my protesting wikifying (!) and made a snide remark about Polish Wikipedia, which happens to coincide with my native language, as disclosed on my user page. Otherwise, Polish Wikipedia has no relevance to editing this article, or anything regarding Avala's faulty edit summaries. You had no trouble understading and replying, but Avala deflects. This is the essence of arguing merit with him. If this is not disruptive, what is? Kind regards, --Mareklug ^talk 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

---

You just referred to me wikifying the article in that diff1 link as something bad. Maybe Polish Wikipedia considers wikification to be POV but here it's actually a desired act.

However in this edit [2] you have

• Put back the non working reference in Russia section which was commented out.
• Removed reference in Egypt. These reference removals are especially odd I think.
• Readded the broken reference in Spain despite the fact that working references exist.
• Removed wikification and style fix in Mozambique.
• Removed wikification for Laos.
• Removed non controversial reference and style fixes in Argentina, Romania, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Vietnam
• Removed reordering in Belarus and reference fix
• Added OR summarization for Bosnia which is factually incorrect (there is a statement by the Foreign Minister but the summarization says how the MFA stayed silent etc.)
• Erased a sentence from Brazil entry which is even in the reference title so you couldn't miss it.
• Readded OR and unrelated comment in Cuba section "However, no Caribbean state has gone on record officially to embrace, oppose or even react to Kosovo's independence, >>>according to a neighboring Ministry of Foreign Affairs<<<." ?
• Put the early statement "we took note" over a final decision made by the decision maker, the president in Iran section
• Put back the statement of the unnamed person for Israel. Added the unverifiable "Foreign Ministry officials and politicians are privately voicing a general sympathy towards the Kosovar cause.". Removed the named statement by a Knesset representative.
• Put the early boiler plate statement "we took note" from Slovak MFA which was made BEFORE 4 month period ("Only after evaluating the situation Slovakia will decide on its further steps.") which passed and removed the statements made AFTER that period by the Prime Minister who is above the MFA in ranks. Smells like an agenda to hide information.
• Removed cohesion fix in Venezuela.
• Readded this to Ukraine section: "Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko announced during a joint briefing with PACE President Lluís Maria de Puig in Strasbourg in the framework of the visit to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe." What did she announce? What does that mean. I fixed that but you replaced it with a version which has a dot in the wrong place.
• Removed the Template:fact from Palestine section standing next to a statement which has no source for which you should get a Template:Uw-tdel3.

So there you go. I wikified and you removed it. I think I am right and that you have an agenda. So like I said admins should evaluate your behaviour which consists of removal of wikification, removal of references, carving the article to suit the POV of yourself instead of the general NPOV by removing information you don't like, removing style and cohesion fixes, removing maintenance templates, adding unverifiable information etc.--Avala (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This material is rather for the article's talk page or formal dispute resolution, Avala. I have already informed Avala that I do not think that his report on your latest editing requires any kind of admin intervention against you. Please try to resolve your differences civilly and constructively on the article's talk page altogether with other editors, and if you still can't come to a common ground please consider dispute resolution (but not the Arbcom as suggested by Mareklug, from which a case and an entire set of decisions already affect this highly disputed article- WP:ARBMAC). Or, I may grant full protection to this article, and edits will once again have to be approved by a consensus on its talk page. Might be that the best solution. Húsönd 21:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to correct your statement in one part. If his actions can be tied to some of the pre-block warnings it means that they can and must require admin reaction. All the best --Avala (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Pre-block warnings? Húsönd 21:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes those that must be given before the block. For an example when someone removes maintenance template of such sort which are not even debatable (quote but no source) he or she should get Template:Uw-tdel1, Template:Uw-tdel2, Template:Uw-tdel3 or Template:Uw-tdel14. Mareklug removed Template:fact. There are also uw-delete warnings which could correspond to removing references like in Egypt section or removing a little bit of text from Brazil and constantly insisting on it or the uw-error when he adds that Bosnian MFA stayed silent but we have a quote by the Foreign Minister.--Avala (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I know what pre-block warnings are, I just didn't know whose warnings you were talking about. Indeed, users have the right to place the template demanding a citation. Removal of {{fact}} tags is to be reverted, and the remover warned/blocked if he persists in removing them without adding citations. Húsönd 22:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was interested in and it's nice to see I wasn't wrong here. I think this will be enough to keep Mareklug from removing it in the future including the {{who}} template for something put under quotes "" but without a name. For that reason (lack of name behind the quote) he completely erased Uruguay but on the other hand opposed even adding the who template to Israel section. Also he could get the uw-delete warning for removing the perfectly normal and sourced statement by a Knesset representative, the statement which is even very similar to the unnamed one he insists on having. --Avala (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That is true, although I would prefer that you two worked together for an agreement rather than battle over each other's wrongdoings. Húsönd 22:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How when he just did it again? I issued him with a delete warning (edit: I will change it to Uw-nor which says "Adding original research, including >>unpublished syntheses<<< of sourced material"). Do you know how the EU works? They issue joint statements after the meeting read by the presiding, currently France and that would be mr Kouchner. He reads it only. Not all 27 ministers one by one in every language. Those are joint statements that exist everywhere, yet Mareklug insists that the press conference attended by Indian, Russian and Chinese Foreign Ministers and the joint statement by Lavrov is invalid because he didn't read it in Chinese ("Lavrov...read a statement purportedy reflecting their joint position, phrased in language not used by India or China elsewhere before or since" or summarization, wrong full of assuming that said "People's Republic of China has yet to come up with a final position regarding the independence of Kosovo.") which are all OR statements by user Mareklug and which can be followed by these two symbols - ?!). He is summarizing, adding unpublished syntheses and adding all other kinds of original research. That is forbidden since it exists in pre-block warnings so please react here because even I tried and am trying to stop it he always comes up with a new spicy edit like this one which causes problems.--Avala (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

HELP!

I am being templated by user:Avala, without basis, on my talk page, in what I understand from reading the discussion on your talk page, is an attempt to have me blocked/banned. This is a subterfuge, abuse of process. I request your intervention and removal of these templates from my webpage. Avala is as you well know a party to edit warring on the article, and a party on editorial disputes. I did not remove any {{fact}} or {{who}} templates that he has placed in the article, except as part of a justified roll-back when a single freshly added fact template was caught in the roll-back. This is described on talk:international reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo. Furthermore, my roll-back was repeated, after Avala reverted it, by another user, with yet another user partly reinstating my roll-back (in the matter of Haiti and Uruguay).

Avala is abusing the Wikipedia warning process in order to continue his partisan edits uninmpeded in the matter of Kosovo. He has done so in the past, again, when he was involved, when I RFC'd informally the totality of his edits on the same talk page. He, templated me then, alleging perosnal attacks. Yet no personal attack took place -- I objected to his edits. Help! --Mareklug ^talk 22:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Trying to divert Husond from your OR edits by making these ludicrous accusations will not work. I gave you the Uw-nor warning for adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sourced material (like "Lavrov...read a statement purportedy reflecting their joint position, phrased in language not used by India or China elsewhere before or since" or how Cuba did not make a reaction when it did through the foreign policy advisor). Stop crying for help and get your act together - stop adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sourced material because it is forbidden.--Avala (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article, which shall constitute an effective halt to your clash. Mareklug, I believe that you will be particularly unhappy about my decision, as the article was locked on Avala's last edit. You may of course propose a reversion to your last edit on the talk page through the "requested edit on a protected page" process you know well. I believe that for the moment, protection was the best solution. Until protection is lifted, all edits shall now require community approval. Húsönd 22:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks

You are too patient, sometimes ;-) Asterion^talk 00:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Greece situates partially in Asia

Please, refer to the source, that eastern islands of Greece on the coast of Asia minor do not situate in Asia.
Also, You can probably read, that the Greek Saint Eustratius on the Aegean Sea is different than the Netherlandic Sint Eustatius on the Caribbean Sea, thank You.
--PKo (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug

OK I think it's time to block him for a couple of days to cool down. He is now removing my comments of the talk page diff. I tried hard to follow which parts of this article need a better source, and I have found them (ie. the source from the MFA instead of the media report is always better because the MFA source is official and is more permanent) and filed an edit request but he just removed it including my other proposal for Cuba. Please there is no other option. --Avala (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

He is also calling me obtuse ("characterized by a lack of intelligence") - diff.--Avala (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK does he ever stop? He is trying to introduce deliberate factual errors. He made a victorious edit summary how he has new evidence on China and equalised that with a non-existant consensus and filed an edit request. Of course I contested it immediately, but why? Because his "evidence" is completely unrelated to what he is trying to show it. There is no mention of Kosovo in his quote but something about Ossetia and Abkhazia and then he makes an assumption from that > if they are modest in comments about these regions they must be equally neutral on Kosovo hence we can add the sentence that China has no position over Kosovo. That is original research, almost a definition of it.--Avala (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This editor, user:Avala, is viciously campaigning to have me removed, and is distoring my actions in the process. Here, he is lending undue weight to my in-passing chiding him not to block consensus over a typo, but to just fix it ("Must you be obtuse? Just fix it and be done with it.") Perhaps "obtuse" was not the word to use, for which I apologize. But I do not apologize for trying to write a neutral account of Kosovo recognition, together with all the other editors. Avala is the lone agent of Serbia bias in the article, and he, as an experienced editor and Serbian Wikipedia administrator, is fighting in every dirty way, using Wiki parliamentary procedures, writing behind my back to administrators, and templating me to death. Please look at the relative merits of the body of MY edits on Kosovo, not only in the international reaction article, and the real damage done in this article (and on Commons) by Avala, to which a number of editors have objected on the article talk page over the months. It's all archived. The article is now protected because of an Avala revert (which he described in the edit summary with "rm OR", not at all true, and no mention, that he wholesale reverted. And he reverted addition of new content for China, India and Cuba, worked on off-article by myself and Ian, another long-term contributor.

One would think that Avala, an experienced editor and an administrator on a Wikimedia project, would use his skills to perusade effectively on the talk page, and get other editors to agree with him, not cause the article to become locked by his edit-warring. This is all I have to say in my defense for now. --Mareklug ^talk 16:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not here to persuade anyone and will not use any skills for that purpose. Everyone has their own head believe it or not. Anyone can for an example make a conclusion that your claiming about Chinese neutrality on Kosovo based on Chinese position on Abkhazia and Ossetia is an OR nonsense. --Avala (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

procedural complaint: pretending to be an administrator

I will not "template" user:Avala's talk page, as he insists on doing it to mine, because I loathe such parliamentary throwing stones into somene else's garden in order to harm them, to discredit them, hoping that the little stones accrue to a damaging pile...

However, Avala is now usurping the role of an administrator, by removing an editprotect template I activated, after the editors have reached consensus on the matter of NPOV correction for China entry. His continued lone opposition was demonstrated in the discussion to violate WP:VER and WP:COMMON, as I added more evidence of Chinese differences with Russinas since the time of the event Avala insists is iconic enough to define the Chinese and Indian positions on Kosovo.

I showed it also to be a defense of his own edit, which lends undue weight per the mentioned policies, and is sourced in a partisan fashion (to Russian sources).

Considering that this is a chronic, conflicted situation, and that he is an experienced editor and an administator on Serbian Wikipedia, perhaps you should write something in this matter on his talk page. Here is the diff [3]. Kind Regards, --Mareklug ^talk 16:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Again you are trying to divert the issue from the real one to something that is a non-issue. You did the same thing with editprotect templates I filed before if you thought the issue didn't have consensus. There is nothing wrong with that. The real issue is your OR where you file some news piece on Chinese position regarding Georgia as anyhow relevant to their reaction on Kosovo and also magically create consensus out of it. That is the problem.--Avala (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please try to resolve this between yourselves, I can only perform administrative actions against either of you if presented evidence of behavior that would justify admin intervention. Ranting about each other's actions and accusing each other of the same things won't do. This is content dispute and the article is already protected. For the moment no more admin intervention is needed. The content you dispute is being assessed by the community on the talk page so I suggest that you both just ignore each other for a while and let other users serve as mediators. Húsönd 17:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:99.228.164.238

Please look at User:99.228.164.238 edits on September 8. He has been inserting unsourced POV information about India (e.g., Types of rape) and systematically changing or deleting references to India or other countries close to Pakistan. I have reverted some of this edits in Tajikistan and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, but I am not qualified to deal with the rest of the long list for September 8. Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks for looking into this. I appreciate very much your readiness and willingness to help. --Zlerman (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much for the Barnstar! You're doing a great job too. :D Pinkadelica (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 35	25 August 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell"	News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Interview with Mav
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 36	8 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again	WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured topics	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August
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) 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Medical degree RPP

Hiya! You recently fully protected the medical degree page upon my request due to an dispute I'm assisting with via the WP:3O procedure, thank you! This is the first time I've done an rpp, and I did it via Twinkle (which I love, but use carefully). As such I don't really know how to go about things now (perhaps you could also suggest some reading about page protection?). We are close to a solution in the debate. Could you kindly advise my how do I, or they, go about putting the agreed upon version of the page (when it's ready) in place, and also removing the protection after this is done? Thanks! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 22:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Could I ask you to remove the protection on the page now? We have reached a point where I don't think that it is necessary anymore. If there is a way to only allow the parties involved in this dispute edit ability for 24 hours that would help, but if not, no problems; just remove the lot. This is just a request and if you disagree with it, no problems either. Thanks! Fr33kman^{talk APW} 00:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Closing an RM that has no consensus doesn't require an admin. I'm shocked that you as an admin would waste your time reversing my closing the RM, saying that you wanted to waste the time of another admin to close it. Really, closing an RM requires only three things: Intelligence, an understanding of RM procedures, and a lack of involvement with that particular discussion, i.e. an impartial opinion. If and only if a move requires the tools of an admin then an admin is required. In addition there are many hotly debated RMs that you really can't choose which way to go and in that case it is best left to an admin to close it because the WP community will tend to be more comfortable with an admin making the call. This was not such a case. Even if it was, the appropriate response would be to resig it or reverse the finding, not re-open it. 199.125.109.29 (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Closing a controversial RM also requires trust and knowledge of the user who's closing it, something an IP (and especially dynamic IPs) generally cannot provide. The "lack of involvement with that particular discussion" cannot be verified, nor can an "impartial opinion". Experience in requested moves also matters, and that can also not be verified. And last but not least, admins are trusted with the task of reading consensus, not just count votes. All of these are reasons for reverting an IP closure of this RM. Yes, the result will likely be "no consensus" or "no move". And still, an admin should do it. Húsönd 03:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

re:/Plzeň/Plzen/Pilsen

I replied on my talk page, as I generally prefer to keep discussions in one place. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

You protected the International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo article without consensus. Unprotect it please. -- 92.0.197.9 (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Declined Protection is within an administrator's discretion and does not require consensus of any kind to be executed. The article was experiencing a persistent edit war, thus protection was not only adequate as was also necessary. Húsönd 19:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Insult updates

Just letting you know of updates to User:Ijanderson977/Insult. He still seems to be hostile towards other users. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will inform you if I see any more incivility from the user. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Jakezing -- Not really attacks, but more or less being rude towards other users for no reason.

Referring to this edit. Saw your entries on his page, so I thought this should be necessary. I've warned him, but it's only a matter of time before he removes my warning and probably yells at me too. --The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 22:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Max Mux

tell him that if he wants to eventuly work with me, he has to respect my wish that he dosnt talk to me or edit my page.--Jakezing (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

edit protects

Could you do me a favor please, there are a couple of edit protect requests on International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo and i was wondering if you would do the honors. Thanks Ijanderson (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. I can understand why have to wait on such a controversial article. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wonder if you could advise me

I'm patrolling Recent IP edits with Lupin's antivandal tool and came across this. I feel if may qualify for a courtesy delete; how do I report it? Thanks Fr33kman^{talk APW} 00:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just received rollbacker, so now the vandals are in for it :-) (and I'm sure they're shacking in their boots!) :-) btw: I was just declined accountcreater, how long should I leave it before I ask again? Thanks! Fr33kman^{talk APW} 02:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)