User talk:Oub

This is a test.

Moved back

Hi Oub, I've taken the liberty to move your talk page back to where it belongs (i.e., from User talk:Oub2 to User talk:Oub). Kind regards, — mark ✎ 16:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, thanks! I once moved that page, but did not know how to move it back. Oub 19:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC):[reply]

The Passion

I removed the paragraphs in question because speculating on how a director might have done it differently is non-encyclopedic and OR. Your points are interesting, and you may notice I kept the paragraph about there being no Passion narrative in the Gospels (moved it up into the "source material" section. Thanks for commenting - Her Pegship 16:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

$\int dx=0\Box \phi =0$

March 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Office Open XML. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 12:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Scarian thanks for your reaction. I have answered in detail on the talk page of OOXML, which I think is better suited for this dispute. I must also add a sad observation, since OOXML is a highly political subject, at the end of the month there will be a voting about it becoming an ISO standard and given the fact that according to various sites http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070123.gtmsft0123/BNStory/Technology/home microsoft looks for support of its case in a rather unconventional manner, one should be very careful.Oub (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC):[reply]

To be absolutely honest, I'm not interested in content disputes. You can take all of this to WP:RfM. I'm more interested in the fact of keeping the articles safe and free from edit warring and non-reliable sources. I won't block hAl until he does something wrong. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 16:20, 10 March 2008 (ETC)

Re: Scarian Well I understand but was afraid of it. (Actually I suspect but I don't have proofs that HAl uses different accounts) Now what precisely I have to do in order take that to WP:RfM. Oub (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC):[reply]

[1] - That sort of editing behaviour contradicts what you are saying, friend. Please do not revert anymore on that contentious issue. I am obliged to give you another warning for edit warring. Please stop. Use discussion. Thank you. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 10:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Scarian Look you called for a break and we were discussing the issue, then suddenly Warren popped up and deleted the entire section without contributing to the discussion. I explicitly complained about his behavior in your talk page before undoing the edit. To make it clear it is not the fact that this entire section was deleted was a bad solution, I would have even agreed with it, it was the fact that Warren acted like this. That you give me the warning and not him, I find strange to say the least. Oub (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC):[reply]

I have done so now. Sorry for the delay. (Additionally, I have requested that someone [anyone] file for WP:RfM) Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 13:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Scarian thanks, wouldn't it be consequent to revert User:Warren 's edit then, since he did that without discussion? Oub (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC):[reply]