Jump to content

User talk:Husond/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 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.

==re:Your Message on Talk:Dvorak keyboard==

Oh, thanks for clearing this up. Strange that it is targeted at all. Why not keep it semi-protected and redirect Talk:Dvorak keyboard to Talk:Dvorak Simplified Keyboard since Dvorak keyboard is a redirect to Dvorak Simplified Keyboard? Oh, and it was a nice thought, but I'm not an admin :) semper fi — Moe 01:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this trick where I saw just the category on the redirect and the redirect still work. I added it now [1] The page needs to be labeled as semi-protected somehow and I think this might do the trick. Have no clue either why it was attacked, doesn't seem popular to begin with. About adminship, after I failed 4 times under my old username User:SWD316 and once under this name I decided to wait a year before trying again, which will be in March sometime. Cheers! semper fi — Moe 02:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, just saying that brightened my day :) semper fi — Moe 02:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage

For the sake of clarity, the article is completely locked, and we have been debating bitterly for a long while now. If you read the whole talk page, you can see we are coming to an agreement. Jeffpw 19:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. The condition it is locked in is scandalously POV. It had been NPOV, but some extremely religious/conservative editors altered it right before it got locked. Anyway, there are now good faith negotiations underway, and it is my hope that as soon as the lead is agreed upon, we can alter it. Can we contact you if we achieve consensus about the lead, to at least get that put into NPOV form while we discuss the rest of the article? Jeffpw 19:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

Thanks for the message. Nah, it does not discourage me at all. I'll try to improve myself. Maybe in a few months try again. Happy New Year. (You guys have about three more hours I believe, I have to wait ten more hours...) :) Greetings, Vseferović 19:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For bringing about a positive change on the marriage article, and resolving a longstanding conflict. What a happy way to close out 2006! Jeffpw 22:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your protection of the Continuation War article

The following is a messy and almost incomprehensible discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Some sockpuppets blocked, some pages protected, and me jumping from a 5th floor window. Húsönd 19:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after five twelve days of heated debate, still no consensus in sight. Would you accept the daunting task of reviewing the resulting walls of text and passing a judgement? Or, at least, make further suggestions to help settle the conflict? --Illythr 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to mess your talk page, but I'm starting to feel we are dealing with a troll here. The way he tries to move discussion to the irrelevant issues, refusal to compromise and unwillingness to cite sources points to that way. :-( --Whiskey 10:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to semi-protect the Talk page of the Continuation War article? Art Dominique is back but doesn't log in and uses ISP IP address, or is there other ways to prevent that? --Whiskey 22:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous. --Illythr 14:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Contentuos history views"

Well, I'm partial to the conflict myself, so prepare to be brainwashed by Stalinist propaganda. :-)

Anyhow, this section was repeatedly inserted by numerous single-purpose accounts, many of which someone had already identified as sock-puppets [2]. Calls to provide sources or at least discuss changes by other editors were largely ignored. Here is the last inserted version.

The addition is probably a result of the "Who won the war" war that raged long before that. Anyhow, after you had protected the article, Whiskey offered a paragraph-by-paragraph discussion to debunk the (totally unsourced) claims presented in the section. The responce was huge walls of text, full with pathos, more unsourced claims and, curiously, numerous sockpuppetry accusations directed at Whiskey and me, as well as some other visiting users.[3], [4], [5],[6] etc. The extraordinary claims presented by the anon army were debunked by user:Whiskey, and to a lesser extent, me. The last edit to the dispute section was made on December 28th. Since then they have mostly focused on more accusations and repeating older arguments. To me, this looks like a clear case for a rouge admin to come in and suppress The Truth™. I guess you can also ask other users, but the opinions of most of the regulars are already expressed here. --Illythr 22:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

The name of the article is currently only a minor problem. user:Roobit suggested to rename the article, because he thinks that the current name represents Finnish POV. I sort of supported him, because of similarity with Great Patriotic War (the Soviet name of USSR's war against Germany and its allies) article, which discusses only the term, while the actual event is described in Eastern Front (World War II). But that issue is rather slow-moving and not the focus of the major conflict (no edits/reverts were made on it). --Illythr 22:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to ensure that the issue doesn't become forgotten. As long as you have it scheduled somewhere, that's fine by me. Cheers, --Illythr 23:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I shall initiate a Checkuser procedure. I was reluctant to do so before, because I'm rather inexperienced in due process, but, I guess, it's never too late to learn it. --Illythr 12:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The checkuser produced the obvious result, that should have been clear to everyoune from the begining: this army of puppets is nothing more then the perma-banned User:Art Dominique (also known as the "Kven user"). It took me some time to realize his true identity, as I was fortunate enough to never have passed paths with him before.
As there are no outstaning disputes, the article could be unlocked and his all edits reverted. If you do this, please inform the other parties, I am not going to do the cleanup. -- Petri Krohn 07:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second Petri here. After the puppets were locked, there has been no comments to the disputed text. Although, I have an impression that there has been one open proxy which has been used for editing the article maintained by Elisa telehone company at the same location as our puppetmaster had worked. I wonder if it is the reason why checkuser failed to some accounts of User:Love is all we need. But anyway, let's try by unprotecting the article and cleaning the mess he created there. --Whiskey 00:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, you can try unprotecting it. We shall remove the section and then will try to salvage whatever good info it had back into proper places of the article. I suspect that Kven user might try and hinder us by starting another revert war, though. In this case semi-protection may be in order. --Illythr 00:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected Please report if the edit war resumes.--Húsönd 00:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Húsond: The revert war was re-launched by the user Illythr, immediately upon you unlocking the Continuation War article, despite of the fact that agreement had been reached to keep the contested text and to work on it, bringing in further source information, etc.
The user Petri Krohn had not participated in the actual debate, what has to do with any war related facts. He had been warned (see here: [7]) about making disruptive contributions, such as posting duplicates of unrelated comments in the middle of comments of others, as he did here: [8]; and about making disruptive comments, as here did here: [9]. Instead of these unconstructive tactics, he was asked - gently - to please participate in the debate with factual information and related sources, or otherwise in constructive manner.
Thus, looking from this perspective, the user Petri Krohn should be out of this debate now, as far as this agreement reached goes.
The saving of the contested text was initiated on Dec 29, 2006 by the approach from the major opponent, user Whiskey, by the following message: [10]. That proposal is agreeable to me, and apparently to all others, as no one has raised opposing voices against that approach.
After the settling by the user Whiskey, a few minor details were discussed about the manner and timetable for the adding of sources, etc. Now, to try to suddenly back up from this agreement reached, would be very dishonorable, and characteristic to the approach of user Whiskey.
Due to this preach of contract, I propose that the text will be locked back in its place, and that special mediation would be sought for, unless user Whiskey agrees to proceed the way hew had promised. Please, let us not waist the time of Wikipedia administrators with false promises.
Suursaari 05:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the side following I also propose that we should stay in a result of the long lasted article debate otherwise the debate has been meaningless. And this is not of course acceptable here. Yours, Huckleberry Hugo
He is back with new sockpuppets. I have marked these two as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Art Dominique with ten more I discovered yesterday. They should all be blocked. Any new socks should be blocked on sight. -- Petri Krohn 10:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are the rules here? Is it so that you can list anybody you want? Maybe those others are sockpuppets, I don't know. But this is the one and only name what I have registered in Wiki. You can reveal sockpuppets with usercheck. Please, clear my name after that as soon as possible not to be a sockpuppet. --Huckleberry Hugo
Any sockpuppet suspections should be taken to WP:RCU, unless they're obvious. I'm not a checkuser and I haven't been observing the editing patterns of these users so I can't really make conclusions about more sockpuppetry. Since this issue is getting more and more complex, perhaps WP:RFI could prove useful in sorting this mess out as well.--Húsönd 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Meanwhile, the war continues ([11]). Suggest semi-protection. --Illythr 19:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if one side engages in the war through various sockpuppets and keeps backing up its position by accusing the opposition of Stalinism, its credibility would dwindle rather quickly. Oh well, an RFC, you say? It's never too late to learn how to conduct one, I guess, although I'd rather be editing the mainspace instead... --Illythr 20:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more confirmed. Still unconvinced? --Illythr 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've indef blocked Suursaari.--Húsönd 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly handshake to end the deadlock of the Continuation War article

User Whiskey and everyone else: The proposal by user Whiskey [12] on December 29, 2006 for cooperation is appreciated.

His suggestion for us to hold on to the previously contested text, and to allow further sources and links to be added, and some minor alterations to be made, is in the spirit of the widely accepted Wikipedia standards and "rules".

The decision by the user Whiskey is met by a friendly handshake from the user Ahven is a fish, as long as it can be agreed to extend the exact same Wikipedia standards to cover the entire Continuation War article and its various claims, instead of this segment only. We - of course - must not have a double standard.

We must try allowing ourselves to act sensibly and sensitively with any changes proposed and made to the Continuation War article from here on.

Let us hope that others will not disagree with this attempt to cooperate. If we do not hear of opposing views by January 8, 2007, please allow the user Ahven is a fish to provide a new version of the text by January 9, 2007, in which minor alterations will have been made to the text, taking into consideration some of the suggestions that have been brought up and/or agreed upon in this forum. Also, further sources will be added.

The source below, provided by the user Bejnar on January 3, 2007, will also be added. This source confirms two very important key facts mentioned in the previously contested text, which has been under scrutiny in this forum:

1. Russian President Boris Yeltsin did admit, that the Soviet Union started the Continuation War, by its attack against Finnish targets (a claim fiercely contested by the user Illythr) .

2. President of Finland Tarja Halonen did remind in Paris, that - importantly - Finland had a separate war, siding the official Finnish view of the Government of Finland and the Parliament of Finland (a point fiercely contested by the user Illythr).

As the above points have formed the central backbone of the entire debate in this forum [13], it is solemnly requested, that the previously contested text will be allowed to stay intact from any further revert warring, and that sufficient time will be allowed for providing more sources, such as related book and page information, for support of the previously contested information. ---Ahven is a fish 06:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A fine example of what we have to face back on the talk page. Do check the "reference" to see how much truth the above claim has. --Illythr 12:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Husond: I hope you don't mind such a long message about the user Illythr. I do not like complaining about anyone. This is the first time for me in Wikipedia, ever - outside the talk pages, in acceptable language. This needs to be done, however, for the protection of Wikipedia and many of its users.
In fact, there is much more discriminating information about user Illythr available. Please, let us know, if even more such facts need to be brought forward.
The above settlement offer from yesterday drove the user Illythr very mad, sending him to go after the people who oppose his views (and techniques), in a manner uncalled for, as these people are only playing by the rules. Instead, user Illythr should just let the facts speak for themselves on the talk page.
User Illythr's naughty game and tricks were pinpointed at early point. Yet, he was suggested to just calm down on Dec 24, 2006, and admit to the facts. He took this act of good will and kindness for granted. Yesterday he began vandalizing the Continuation War talk page (see below), and listing people as sock puppets on the checkuser page, etc., people who certainly do not belong there.
There is plenty of evidence about the unacceptable actions of Illythr, with many of his sock puppet accounts. Note, that when Illythr was spoken to, he answered "I did" - only yesterday -, but he had forgotten to change his user name to his computer (see below). This is all too typical for him. That alone would not be so bad, perhaps. The bad thing is, what he is doing with the information of Wikipedia. -- Cheers, and thanks, --Ahven is a fish 15:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding the sock puppeteer Illythr (Roobit [14], Whiskey, 68.39.144.136, Jatrius, etc.)

Dear user Husond (I posted this message at the checkuser page as well):

(I picked up from the message sent to user User:Sebbeng, and used it as a frame, adding more info about the misbehavior of the user Illythr, which ought to justify the blocking of his various user accounts. Yesterday, a settlement offer was accepted on the Continuation War talk page, to end a deadlock. This drove the user Illythr on a rampage, and that rampage spilled to this page as well. It also led to his violations of the Continuation War talk page, in several ways. Note, that Illythr replied to a comment pointed to him, yesterday. In heat, he forgot - for just a second -, that he was signed in as Roobit. These are the type of things, this user can be seen doing in regular bases. The very bad thing is what he has been doing, and what he could continue to do, to the information of Wikipedia.)

The user Illythr uses several accounts to terrorize Wikipedia's articles, which fact can be shown clearly by much evidence. That is the reason why the matter has been brought up by users on the talk pages and elsewhere, including the Finnish Wikipedia (the signer of this message was not the first to request the blocking of user Illythr). Below, please allow an explanation and related leads (for the vandal control to catch this abuser of Wikipedia):

Loosing on the Continuation War talk page debate, - in desperation - the user Illythr appears to seek rescue by trying to blackmail and criminalize the opponents, by unfounded allegations of any sort. With false accusations, he appears to have now targeted the parties that revealed his actions not suitable for Wikipedia (in the talk page comments).

In the Continuation War talk page on Dec 24, 2006, the user Illythr was pointed out - with evidence [15] - of having used a couple of user accounts in a highly unjustified manner.

At this point user Illythr came to defend himself with an us-signed message: [16] (his IP address was registered as 68.39.144.136)

Simultaneously, his alleged duel account, Whiskey (e.g., the two accounts used the rare and personal nah word, nine weeks apart), left the crime scene for days, to quickly establish a user page for his protection, after three years of solid and continuous strong POV pushing to the articles relating to Finnish wars of the 20the century.

Three of the users' main accounts, Illythr, Whiskey and Roobit, had up till then fiercely fought to push un-sourced POV, propaganda, claims (lies) of the Cold War period Soviet Union to be included in the Continuation War article, and related articles.

At 18:31 Dec 24 (UTC), the several user accounts of user Illythr were discussed in light of initial evidence [17] (more came later).

At the same time, the user Illythr was asked to please revert [18] his vandal style action where he archived messages of other users [19], while refusing to archive a highly radical POV article written by his alleged sock puppet account Roobit.

Despite of continued pleas for the user Illythr to revert his action and to also remove the radical article by "Roobit" from the top of the talk page, in manner accptable to all parties, he refused to cooperate (relatet pleas can be seen e.g. in the history file of the talk page: [20]"Please, archive in chronological order").

Instead, the user Illythr has continued fighting fiercely [21] to keep the text on the top of the talk page, by all means.

Thus, administrators, please help: see to it, that the text to move or delete article will be finally transferred to the archives, where much newer and appropriately sourced writings have been placed by the user Illythr. Please, also see to it, that the user Illythr will no longer get to terrorize and dominate the talk page - or related pages - in question, by clearly playing against the rules.

Despite of the clear evidence provided on Dec 24 of misuse of user accounts by the user Illythr in very unacceptable manner, he was not reported further. Instead, he was asked to begin [22] cooperating from thereafter. He appeared to agree (except that he wanted to finish off by making a "check user" [23] of someone on the opposing site first).

Hours later (16:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)), the user User:Sebbeng pointed out that the user account Roobit seems to belong to an unwanted sock puppeteer [24]. This alleged sock puppeteer, Roobit, originally posted [25] - without signing - the extremist Stalinist POV writing on top of the Continuation War talk page, presenting of which on top of the page user Illythr so fiercely to move or delete article fights for, resorting to strong-arm techniques not acceptable in Wikipedia.

Despite of continued pleas from other users [26] for user Illythr to archive this old radical text, along with all the other newer messages of other users which he had archived (11:25 Dec 23, 2006 (UTC)) [27] - not in chronological order -, he refused to comply, e.g. here at 19:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC): [28] (notice, how he forgot to sign in - the IP address became visible: 68.39.144.136).

This constitutes vandalism. This also must be among the reasons why the user Water suggested for the user account Illythr to be blocked [29] from editing in Wikipedia. I agree in that assessment.

The user account Roobit received a "last warning" in reference to personal attacks [30] from the user User:Sebbeng on Dec 3, 2006, due to personal attacks like the one shown here: [31].

To make an impression of being two separate people, the fiercely "cooperating", nah saying user accounts Illythr and Whiskey accounts only in recently began communicating through their user pages, as the allegations of the misuse began surfacing.

A bit closer look to the related user contributions by the accounts in question reveal a pattern of same wordings between the accounts. A number of other characteristics common to his user accounts are easily noticeable as well, such as use of space in the beginning of typing when editing is done etc. (more evidence against the puppeteer is available on the talk pages and in the Finnish Wikipedia, as well), also the smileys and signatures:

;-) --Whiskey 20:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
;-) --Illythr 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
;-) Roobit (14:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]


On January 3, 2007, unsigned and using the account Roobit, Illythr made a mess of the Continuation War talk page [32]:

1. by top posting (despite of several requests for him not to do so)
2. by posting between the lines
3. by even posting between the words, as in here: [33],
4. by not dating any of his comments
5. by not even signing many of his comments
6. by not using the line margins for paragraph, etc.
7. by using insulting language, as in here:


Why this rampage, even worse than normal? The reason is the very same, as in his contacting the checkuser - see here: [34]

He went wildly mad about the settlement being reached earlier yesterday morning - before the rampage of Illythr - by those who follow Wikipedia rules, see here: [35]

This was Illythr, who was upset about this proposal to end the deadlock:

From the piece of conversation copied below, one will be able to see, how the user accidentally uses his "wrong user account", Roobit, when he intends to answer to a questions as Illythr (this has happened before): "… I did? First of all some … Roobit"

This kind of distructive behavior of the user Illythr needs to be stopped a.s.a.p. Illythr is an extreme reverse image of a friendly sock puppeteer.

Besides, under all three main accounts of his in the Continuation War concersation, the user uses offending and threatening language, which is not suitable to Wikipedia:

… it will be as easy to blow your statements up than theirs. So why do you want your statements blown up? --Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"are you smoking something? …" --Illythr 19:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"… some scumbag declared me a sock puppet …" [36] Roobit 09:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC) ( time from history file)[reply]


In the example below, the user intends to answer as Illythr, but accidently uses his Roobit account (forgets to sign in with his other user name):

Ooooookay... Could you, perhaps, help such a development by providing reliable sources to the claims in the disputed section? --Illythr 14:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The text is full of links, built-in sources, and quotes. Besides, as you can see from the history notes [37], the text was just being worked on, when you so rudely - without notice - suggested for the text to be locked. (Ahven is a fish)
I did? First of all some scumbag declared me a sock puppet … Roobit


AGAINST THE NATURE OF WIKIPEDIA, THE MULTI-USER ILLYTHR OPENLY DEFENDS LYING IN WIKIPEDIA (does it with similar wordings, in all of his accounts):


"… The totally different thing is then, does it provide the correct view." --Whiskey 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...doesn't need to provide the correct view to be present, only the mainstream view." --Illythr 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Something need not be true to be accepted as true. It only needs to stick around long enough." --Illythr 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"So it is not necessary for photos to be authentic to be used in the article" ([38]) …--Whiskey 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nah! This article is still full of juvenile exaggeration and sureness of those who don't know.;-) --Whiskey 00:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Military aid? Nah. Ever seen US soldiers manning Soviet military installations, say, during the Caribbean Crisis? --Illythr 15:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this article seems to be quite neutral, as it draws flak from left and right.;-) --Whiskey 20:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Whiskey, noticed any Marxist statements in there? ;-) --Illythr 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
… Happy New Year;-)" Roobit (14:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Ahven is a fish 14:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Húsönd has snarled! Grrr!
This is getting a complete mess. My user talk page is not an article's talk page. Your arguments/accusations are all so entangled that I can't really get anything out of this. Maybe you should consider taking this dispute to the mediation committee or the mediation cabal. And the sockpuppetry accusations to WP:RCU. Otherwise please state your arguments briefly, clearly an soundly so that I can help you. Last but not least, be civil and assume good faith. Thank you.--Húsönd 17:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC) p.s.-I'm not mad, just want things to slow/calm down here.[reply]

Nonetheless, I shall read all of the above and see if I can understand what's going on... --Húsönd 17:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck in that daunting task! Meanwhile, it appears that our mutual friend here is called "Kven-user" and has already had an ArbCom decision on him. (see here). --Illythr 17:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the WP:RCU has proved useful in this matter. After several users have been blocked, please report if the dispute continues with the remaining users.--Húsönd 19:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Barnstar award

The Basque Barnstar of National Merit
for your invaluable help in creating and mantaining the Basque Portal Sugaar 06:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please place it with the rest of your awards in the main page. And replace it with the Basque Award once it's created (if that ever happens). --Sugaar 06:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've replaced it with the Basque Barnstar. More merit indeed. --Sugaar 14:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little help...

Could somebody please edit this image Image:BarnBasque.png so that its background becomes transparent? I think I knew how to do it but can't recall now. Or maybe I just don't have a good picture editor in this computer. Thank you.--Húsönd 18:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's transparent now. –mysid☎ 19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 19:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about un-logged-in IP conversion

Hi, I was on another person's computer, made several edits which, upon being signed with ~ ~ ~ ~ , now bear that person's IP address (208.103.180.57). Is there now a way to convert those recorded IP's to my username, without going to every edit individually? The person at that computer does not have a W account and never edits W. Thanks, Tragic romance 19:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Question

I'm trying to get colors in my signature, but it isn't working. I'm using:
<span style = "color:red">[[User:Madler|Madler]]</span> <span style="color: green"> [[User talk:Madler|Talk]]</span>
What am I doing wrong? (Yes, I checked the "raw signature" box.) Thanks! Madler Talk 12:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting JFK

My vandal skills aren't great yet. I am kinda like a young Padawan. You're from Iceland? I've been there and love your country. I almost wish I could retire there. Ronbo76 19:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even better. One of these days I will go to Portugal and Spain to visit Our Lady. I am of Spanish descent. Ronbo76 20:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

protection request

Thank you for protecting the Silver Chips Online page to prevent repeated vandalism by the user Cerberus. However, the page was recently unlocked, and Cerberus has resumed vandalizing its content. Please protect the page again in the version without his unwarranted contribution.

I have been invited to discuss Cerberus's proposed changes, but engaging in dialogue would only legitimize his vandalism.

It is wholly unreasonable for a page about a high school newspaper's history to include the ad hoc complaint of a disgruntled reader with a political ax to grind. If a section on "gifted and talented reporting" were approved, it would set a precedent transforming the Wikipedia page into a forum for anyone to air their complaints about articles they simply don't like.

Cerberus is simply seeking revenge after the newspaper published factual information that challenged his preconceived opinions.

Once again, please prevent Cerberus's renewed vandalism by locking the page in the version without his contribution.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.238.227 (talk • contribs).

for the record

The vandalism is on the other side: removal of factual content from Wikipedia while refusing to talk. I have made several offers to talk, plus I started a discussion page and invited comment. No response.

I have attempted to add factual content, appropriate to an article about the newspaper's history. In my contribution I include links for verification of the content I added. (The content can be seen on the discussion page, but the user has once again without explanation deleted it from Silver_Chips_Online.) I am happy to remove from my proposed text any content judged nonfactual or inadequately neutral in POV, and have repeatedly so stated. I continue to be ready to talk.

Note that user once again fails to point to any factual inaccuracy in the proposed content. As I have repeatedly stated, I am happy to remove any factual errors from the proposed content.

Cerberus 02:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more for the record

I just want to make sure someone knows what is going on here. No need to reply. Note that I am not requesting protection of the article, which I am about to give up on. It has been an interesting lesson in censorship strategies.

New user Special:Contributions/Levante was created solely to hide efforts to censor Talk:Silver_Chips_Online. This appears to be the same user as Special:Contributions/205.222.248.72 and Special:Contributions/69.255.238.227 . Having repeatedly deleted factual content without providing justification, having disregarded multiple invitations to talk, and having tried to achieve censorship by requesting protection of a preferred version of the article, the user is now trying to achieve censorship by influencing an ongoing Wikipedia deletion discussion.

As always, I remain happy to remove any factual errors in the proposed text for the section Gifted and Talented Reporting, to address any POV problems (if the user can please tell me what they are), and to use any of the Wikipedia dispute resolution methods that the user might prefer. I do not expect this user to change habits, however, so my willingness seems irrelevant...

Cerberus 00:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yet more for the record

Two new sock puppets Special:Contributions/70.21.48.108 and Special:Contributions/68.239.76.78 are deleting content from Silver_Chips_Online article. This is just fyi, not a request for any action. You have already been more than generous with your time in this case.

Cerberus 01:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re[2]: yet more for the record

I went to WP:RCU to report as you recommended, but like Levante, both these accounts were both initiated only for disruptive edits to Silver_Chips_Online. (There is no other activity, as seen at Special:Contributions/70.21.48.108 and Special:Contributions/68.239.76.78. Similarly for Special:Contributions/Levante.) They thus seem to fall into the second category: "Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits" which has proposed solution "Block. No checkuser is necessary."

If I am wrong about that (I am new to this process), which category do you recommend?

Thanks! Cerberus 03:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will try to follow your suggestions carefully. Cerberus 04:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone Beat You to the Punch...

Looks like someone beat you to the punch to nominate me for adminship :P...I still feel its early so I declined and explained to the user on his talk page that if he is interested he can submit a co-nom with you. You people really are too kind :).¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F.Y.I.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (3rd). Best wishes, Travb (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar!

First or second barnstar makes no difference, that is just very nice of you Husond :)! As far as what image editing software I use, I can't help but be a fan of good 'ol Adobe Photoshop. I'm lucky enough to have the Creative Suite version, one of the more premium versions offered by Adobe. Their more basic versions, like Adobe Photoshop Elements for example, are pretty well rounded but lack many of the goodies Creative Suite offers. In those cases a better value might be Paint Shop Pro but I hardly ever worked with it. Now I bet you others might chime about way more sophisticated software in terms of image editing; and to tell you the truth I'm not so much a tech junkie more like an artist who knows how to use her computer :P...but honestly I've always been satisfied with Adobe Photoshop over the years and wouldn't really trade it at the moment.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This is for working on wikipedia in a tireless way. Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 06:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome

You deserve to have a lot of barnstars for your amazing work here. You should be thenking yourself for it and not me. Have a nice week and god bless. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 13:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar!!! Have a nice week and god bless. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 15:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

Right now I am in a little bit of a dispute with User:Paxuscalta. He has pretty much called me disruptive, not helpful, and am not good at fighting vandalism. I am wondering if you can tell him what you think about me as a editor. God bless. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 16:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Apeejay School Nerul

I request you to protect the Apeejay School Nerul page from been edit by unregistered user. You can see the talk page of the article for vandalism done by unregistered user. Nanasur

AIV, Regarding 68.118.246.95

I can see why you removed 68.118.246.95 but she/he blanked WP:BOLD. I just didn't get around to warning 68.118.246.95 before you removed she'he. Cheers to 2007! User:Sp3000 00:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Thanks for contributing to my RfA! Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me. Whilst I have every intention of working on images, unfortunately I can't provide any champagne :(--Nilfanion (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Gercke

This woman does not work as a fashion model. She merely won the show, had a frontcover of one magazine and that's it. Why do you insist on claiming that she is a model? --217.224.132.105 21:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bye

I'm gone. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 01:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review Please

Hi buddy, it is me Arjun which is now my actual usename after the name change. I was wondering if you would be willing to review me since you have helped me so much in the past. Thank you for your time. Arjun 02:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am honestly thinking hard about it...Please read your email and tell me if that changes you mind. Thank you. :) Arjun 19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: Léonce Perret

Hi Husond,

I have a little question regarding some wikiformatting on the Léonce Perret page. As you can see here, there is a difference in the font size and paragraph position from the Director heading down. I tried to fix it using various methods, but I could not figure it out. Could you possibly take a look at it? Thanks in advance! --lovelaughterlife♥talk? 06:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Kaisershatner made some edits after my last edit, but I don't think it solved the issue. The headings (especially External links, Quotes, Screenwriter) are indented and a heading smaller, it seems... --lovelaughterlife♥talk? 23:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Your edit solved the issue. Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the article's potential to be a good article?
Once again, thanks! lovelaughterlife♥talk? 04:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With a chocolate like that, I think I'll keep my mouth shut. :) --lovelaughterlife♥talk? 04:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I e-mail an administrator?

I haven't really used the wikipedia much at all and I'd like to talk in private to husond about an edit he made. How does one get in touch without making a public post. Jay Denebeim <denebeim@deepthot.org>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Denebeim (talk • contribs).

Re: Barnstar

Thanks! It's been a while since I've been on acitve RC patrol, but just redicovered the joys of Lupin's filter, and am acutally finding it quite relaxing :P. I will show no mercy! Martinp23 22:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Continuation War

Hi, I hope you have recovered from your fall from the 5th floor window...

Soft-protection seems to be working on Talk:Continuation War. You could consider removing the protection on Continuation War and replacing if with a soft protection for anonymous and new users. -- Petri Krohn 07:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm fine, I fell on a box filled with styrofoam. Your request is reasonable so I've downgraded the protection for this article to semi-protection. If new sockpuppets of Art Dominique appear, please promptly report them to WP:RCU. Cheers.--Húsönd 16:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Randolph

This article was recentlty speedily deleted due to the guy not meeting WP:BIO, he was a head teacher of a school and the author of the article would like a copy of the deleted page back so he can add the information to the school page. Would it be possible for you to get me the text from the article and place it in User:Ryanpostlethwaite/Dominic_Randolph so I can give him the text? It would be much appreciated RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, it was actually posted under Dominic A. A. Randolph so could you put the page in User:Ryanpostlethwaite/Dominic_A._A._Randolph, many thanks again RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Portugal

As mentioned in its talk page, you have my vote to become a maintainer of Portal:Portugal. If you are willing to, please step in.--Saoshyant talk / contribs (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 18:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Thank you for offering yourself for this position.
Offtopic: it seems you were not informed yet. Esperanza is no more. The project was split in pieces, literally.--Saoshyant talk / contribs (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 18:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are a contributor, or even maintainer of Portal:Basque? If you believe the rotation solution will work well in Portal:PT too, then by all means apply it. Be sure though that it won't be something drastic that may cause a lot of pain to revert in case of problem—just in case.--Saoshyant talk / contribs (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 21:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice...

Hi again Husond, I have followed your advice and I have started to renovate The Hinduism portal. I have updated every single entry, and am going to continue to do so on a weekly/monthly basis. Do you have any suggestions? Cheers! Arjun 20:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, its done, I have added. Now that this has been fixed please Please feel free to nominate an article! Later I will do the same for the selected pic. Cheers, and do you have any more tips. Thanks again! Arjun 21:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

74.118.152.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hi Husond. You blocked 74.118.152.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 24 hours per his or her vandalism to the Austria article. In my opinion 24h is a little short for continued revert warring and blatant vandalism, and I'd instead suggest a block of up to one week. This decision is entirely up to you, of course. Yuser31415 03:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! I already knew blocks were not to be punitive; but I was not entirely sure of block lengths. Anyway, we'll see how he or she does after the block expires. ;) Yuser31415 04:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the Welcome Chikanamakalaka 03:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat of an emergency

If you could, could you please sprotect List of Telecaster players and List of Stratocaster players, I and Anger22 are trying to work hard on fixing citations, but an IP editor continues to insert Fancruft, over, and over without taking heed to countless warnings. Thank you if you can. Arjun 04:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just following up on Arjun's comment. Here is the last post from the IP on my talk page. link I have provided links to this user(across his multiple IP talk pages) to WP:OWN apparently he hasn't read it. I posted a "plea for help" to admin Spangineer earlier. He and I discussed this disruptive user before. At the time we felt patience was best but if he continued to edit war then something should be done about him. Is there anything we can do. In (near) 20000 edit I've never come across an editor this disruptive and persistent. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 04:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess one editor is not the idea for Page protection ;). So Vandal has vandalized heavily past my last/and Tohrus warning. And is now at the AAIV. Cheers, and sorry for bothering you :) Arjun 04:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not bothering me. I'm currently re-analysing this situation.--Húsönd 04:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, the thing is that I forgot to mention, the editor is currently editing under the a Toronto University IP address, so that means that there are several that he/she/they are using. That is the reason why I and Anger felt it was nescary, but that is beside the point since it has just been sprotected. Cheers :). Arjun 04:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Telecaster list is under the strict monitor of the WikiProject Guitarists (it's one of our gems!) If persistent trouble from the University of Toronto IP happens I will alert you. Thanks for you looking in. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 04:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatanatyam‎

As you probably saw from looking at:

a beleagured few of us have tried to deal civilly and in good faith with an ever growing clone army of sockpuppets. Your action has hopefully calmed things down a bit. Thank you! --A. B. (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are going to need full protection. Over the past few days, I've noticed that the puppetmaster has been using account which have been used to edit once or twice in the past, in many cases months ago. In other words, he's built himself up a nice little puppetfarm. Or I guess we could let him trot them out and block them one by one... A Ramachandran 04:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Sselvakumar --BozMo talk 07:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


RE: Your edits to Category:Sindhi Wikipedians

I an not the one to do edits wars this category was staretd by me. please see other's edits too .and i am reverting it to the orignal form Regards.Sindhii 06:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi there dear, I grateful to u that you have took notice of that this page is under edit war. I was trying to make it more neutral beacuse sindhi,so I did not put any political falg ,for making it more neutral i asked to have Sanskrit on it(respecting sindhi Indians, and ajruk that sindhi wearing around the world.), there are many sindhi around the world and there are more then 10 millions of them living in india, and many around the world. some users are bounding them to supportMQM and then join ,1st it was terrorist party which killed thousand of sindhi,pathan,punjabi.now they are politics(i do not have to go in death of it). just want ur help for keep more neutral.beacuse sindhi around the world do not have to accept MQM(why they should). some one is threating that he owns that page.i request for page protection too. they have already MQM category(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Mohajir_Wikipedians)

i will be thankful to u ,if u could help us to seatle dispute.

Khalidkhoso 14:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more read this please. i will send u more links

[edit] 1992 military operation In order to crush this insurgency in Urban areas of Sindh, an operation was launched by Pakistan Army in June 19, 1992. Altaf Hussain, the founder of MQM, had already fled to London 6 months prior to the operation in order to avoid prosecution, where he is currently taking a refuge in England. Chaos,mugging,murder,rape and terror reigned on the streets of karachi months prior to the military operation.But,kidnapping of an serving army officer(Major)and brutal killing was arguably the straw that broke camel's back. Letters MQM were reportedly carved on the body of "shaheed"or"martyered"army officer according to independent Pakistani newspapers. Government finally reponded with force Arresting alleged terrorists and there were allegations of extra judicial killing known as "Encounter" and "Police Muqaabla".MQM soon realised they have overestimated the patience of federal government and sued for peace, the 1992 operation according to independent analysis crippled mqm's ability to use terror tacticts and it has never been able to regain pre 1992 power. Warrants were issued for Altaf Hussain and he is still on the "wanted"list of Pakistani authorities

Khalidkhoso 14:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

read this

August 11, 1988 after Sindhi-Mohajar riots

Read it please

u will knw it .

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-4687%2528199110%252931%253A10%253C938%253ATPOEIS%253E2.0.CO%253B2-V


http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/journal/vol4no1/karachi.html

http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/ACRText/ACR-Pakistan.html

http://www.jochen-hippler.de/Aufsatze/Nation-Building_in_Pakistan/nation-building_in_pakistan.html


It was an exclusively Muhajir party of secular, middle class orientation. Rumor has it that Zia ul-Haq’s Islamist government had a hand in setting it up, to subvert the power of the main opposition party, Benazir Bhutto’s PPP in Sindh. This cannot be confirmed, but the result was exactly that, as its existence led to a civil war in Karachi. The struggle for power between the Muhajirs and Sindhis in the province of Sindh became one of the major destabilizing factors in Pakistan, arresting economic development in the country’s main commercial and industrial center.


The Battlefields of Karachi: Ethnicity, Violence and the State

By Vazira Fazila-Yacoobali


Vazira Fazila-Yacoobali is a graduate student in Anthropology and History. Najeeb Jan is a graduate student in History.

Paramilitary rangers in armored vehicles warily patrol the narrow back-streets of a residential neighborhood in the city of Karachi, Pakistan. A few months ago the presence of state security forces would have surely ignited a fierce gun battle in this middle-class Muhajir locality, a strong support base for the Muhajir Qaumi Mahaz Party. But for now a weary calm prevails as boys playing cricket in the street move to make way for these guardians of a fitful peace. Muhajir (literally "migrant" in Urdu) refers to those Muslims from Central and Northern India who migrated to Pakistan at the time of Partition in 1947. Thousands of Muhajirs, largely from urban middle-class backgrounds, poured into Karachi, transforming this small trading town in the province of Sind into Pakistan's most important industrial and port city.(1) But recently, this rapidly expanding metropolis of eleven million inhabitants has become an urban theater for what many have described as a virtual civil war between the security forces of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's government and a heavily-armed, ethnically-based political party, the Muhajir Qaumi Mahaz (MQM or Muhajir National Front), which claims to represent the interests of Karachi's six million Muhajirs.

Last year alone over 2,000 people were killed as a result of political violence. Entire Muhajir neighborhoods were transformed into battlefields as MQM youth fought with army rangers from the sandbagged balconies of apartment buildings. Despite government claims of having subdued the MQM militants, the death toll for 1996 has already reached 300.


Parties to the Conflict:

1) Government

As of October 1999, led by Chief Executive General Pervez Musharaf following the overthrow of the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in a military coup. Under the previous Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the government engaged the Pakistani Police Force, Paramilitary ‘Rangers’, and troops from the Frontier Corps (Constabulary) in the conflict.

2) Armed groups: Several parties opposed to the government (and each other) are involved in the violence. These are seen to be primarily ethnic or religious groups. In addition, criminal elements, some working through the groups listed below, also contribute to the violence, a legacy of Pakistan’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan and the related drug trade.

a) Sindh nationalists:

-Jeay Sindh (Qadir Magsi Group)

(b) Mohajirs-based groups:

Khalidkhoso 15:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't intend to get involved in this dispute where I lack expertise. Please discuss your disagreements on the category's talk page and see if you can reach a consensus. WP:RFC can help you attract other users and their valued input. --Húsönd 15:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Point taken, but the place name and its pronunciation are quite familiar to me so it doesn't look frightening. But really, what a shame to be here when you could be here or here. Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć 09:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dropping in

Hey Husond you ol' admin you. How are you finding your adminship? I regret not to have voted on your RFA, I didn't see it at all. You blink around here and Esperanza gets deleted. Shame that, the green in my sig is gone, as colour slowly fades from this place. I trust you had a safe and happy Christmas (my dog didn't, but that's another story). I'm doing a ridiculous amount of work on Melbourne street artists (is it just me or do they all have serious learning disabilities?) and having fun with Auto Wiki Browser. Seriously, it's like a car. Daniel Bryant's still not taking admin yet. What's with that? Culverin and I were discussing it (and a great many other things) on our respective talk pages. Do you want in?

Have you seen Snakes on a Plane yet? I would highly recommend it. The only time I've ever experienced a Wikipedia article to be funnier that an Uncyclopedia one. Any funny vandalism? Best I've seen is probably "Jimmy's probably busy trying to pick up some Wiki-women" spelt with numbers. How's it in Portugal? Here it's 40 degrees and our flora is slowly leaving.

Do you still play Magic? I am currently ripping it up with my revised Goblin deck.

So anyway:

I'll support your RfB though, if you tell me. Kind regards, Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 11:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love the "Your protection of the Continuation War article" section. It is absolutely great. I will turn it into a story in my userspace and force people to read it. Waaagh, Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 11:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is: User:Dfrg.msc/A Story. It's gonna be WP:NCR all over again. Me and Guy got up to some crazy stuff. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 11:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate, first sorry about the late response. It has been damn hot down here, so much so that my computer has taken to shutting down because of overheating. If I could show you my ridiculously over-elaborate cool mechanism Husond, I would. I know how you feel. In Canberra you can:

  • Burn to death from extreme heat
  • Freeze from subzero temperatures in the winter
  • Get stuck in an infinite loop on our hundreds of pointless roundabouts.


Highest maximum temperature: 46.4 °C (115.5 °F) , Canberra, 1 February 1968

Lowest minimum temperature: -13.2 °C (8.2 °F), Canberra, 11 July 1971


You have pet cockroaches? That's pretty awesome. I have cockroaches too, but not contained in any capacity. They come inside because they can sense moisture and they want in. I also have a, how you say, "Major Lizard Infestation". Friggin' Huge Rats! Anyway, what do you roaches eat? Have you named them? What do they do for exercise? Are you training them to become your deadly army of the night? Counterspells? Arrgh! They annoy me more than circle of protections! Well, there one of those cards that are great if your using it (Counterspell, Pacifism, Fireball ect.) but should be made illegal if others use them. Have you been using Vandal Proof recently for me, it's extremely buggy. Usually closed down before I can make a reversion. And the bad words list is terrible, 95% is no where close to vandalism. Snakes on a Plane is the best movie ever. The best Husond. Nut not better than "Continuation War", once I write the book, I'll make the movie. I found this on Uncyclopedia. I hope it warms you up. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 23:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why revert Template:Victoria_Line_colour?

The colour I changed it too is from http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/pdf/LULColourStandardsLinked.pdf

Template:Victoria_Line_colour —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.112.87.216 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, I think I understand where the colour was taken from now (it's the RGB colour instead of the web-safe version. I'll add a comment to that effect to avoid confusion in future. Thanks for reverting :) 87.112.87.216 21:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Husond

Hopefully question four on TeckWizes RFA isn't related to the incident with the Strat players article a couple of days ago :). Cheers! Arjun 03:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be wise to do an RFA by Thursday? As I think I am ready, but I would like to hear some feedback. What do you think? As I have been looking at the AIV for weeks, and I would prefer to clear it rather than backlog it :). Arjun 03:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replied on my talk. Thanks :). Arjun 03:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, look how much better The Hinduism portal looks after Rfrisbie added the some things and created the rotation system. Arjun 04:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Question

Your question on my RFA have been answered. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 03:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please, protect the Continuation War article for now

I request for you to please protect the Continuation War article for now, while we go through looking for intermediation, or a third party help, by available Wikipedia resources. Please, keep the Contentious history views segment in the article, as it was agreed that the text will be saved. No factual errors appears to have been pointed out in the text, despite of a month long debate which took place. Thank you, user Husond.

The revert war continued, unfortunately, regardless of the fact that the opponent, user Whiskey, had finally agreed not to tamper with the text, until each paragraph is even further referenced. Already, the segment in question is the best referenced part of the entire article. Point by point, this segment proves wrong the unprecedented claim by the user Whiskey, according to which the Continuation War can be seen as a result of "a series of political miscalculations" by the Finnish leadership.

The user Whiskey has refused to provide an appropriate source for this "conclusion" segment statement of his, keeping of which he fights for. After continued requests, he finally tried offering a book as a source. Yet, the checking of the book information shows that the author does not agree with the POV of the user Whiskey. -- Nietjärvi 14:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected due to edit war.--Húsönd 15:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GeMagic

I see that another article for GeMagic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been created, this time under the name Gemagic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I was going to speedy tag it, but since you have deleted the old name the last three times I thought I'd better bring it to your attention to see if you wanted to salt the new name as well. Thanks, Satori Son 20:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that so quickly. Just FYI, I have also speedy tagged Cathy Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a repost based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathy Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell is apparently a spokesperson for the GeMagic product. Thanks again, Satori Son 20:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeckWiz's RFA

TeckWiz's RFA
I would like to thank you for helping the Wikipedia community decide whether I should become an admin by voting neutral of my second RFA. I withdrew per WP:SNOW, as consensus to promote was against me. I will continue to improve until one day, I become an admin. Thanks, and happy editing! --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 21:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Sprotection on Kyoto Protocol

I've lifted the sprotection you placed on Kyoto Protocol last November. It looks like the article is fine now (it was linked from Instapundit today, though, so I'm keeping an eye on it). If I did something stupid, give me a whack with the cluebat. --Slowking Man 03:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuber (genus) semi-protection

Thanks! One less aggravation. --A. B. (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Husond/Archive_8&oldid=1251201436"