User talk:Husond/Archive 11

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:Vandal Fight

Sorry, I saw the two other warnings, but I failed to look at the timestamps. I will do better in the future, but since I thought that he vandalized the page twice in February, a level 3 warning seemed inappropriate. Again, Sorry. ~Steptrip 01:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorman being blocked

Motorman is a good friend of mine and after seeing him having vandalised my talk, I'm glad you blocked him. It's all he ever seems to do. It must amuse him. Somebody needed to take action. He was really apologetic to me about it. Can you unblock him soon, but only when he has served a suitable punishment. Soopa hoops77

I think motorman really deserves another chance now. Thankyou for blocking him though, its good of you to do the right thing!! -- Zesty Prospect 17:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC) User:Zesty Prospect[reply]

In reply to "Warnings

• Will do, most of the time I try to give out warnings (i'm not sure if you can see "talk pages" in my contributions, but if you can you can check and see I try to, especially for IPs), with a link to the article in question (though not the actual vandalism-article comparison, just the present article), but if the vandalism isn't incredibly serious or if I'm tired I sometimes forget. But I will try to force myself to do so more often in the future! Thanks for the friendly reminder though. Irish♣Pearl 03:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Husond,

Some kind of protection might be useful.

The version of my user page should be the one as of 17 November 2006.

Thanks, Nealjking 05:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP problem

Hello, Mr. Husond

This IP (Special:Contributions/202.79.18.2) (User talk:202.79.18.2) indicates some warning messages on its talk page. From my Internet connection status tab my IP is 10.0.7.101 . But in wikipedia, my contribution history shows this IP 202.79.18.2 while I contributing without logged in. I didn't vandalised any page before.This IP 202.79.18.2 engaged in editing with some Articles Where I haven't even visited. What's the problem? Will it create problems in future? Is someone using this IP from another PC?--NAHID 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)--NAHID 22:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S.

I volunteered on 15th september,2006. But this IP first started editing on 4th september, 2006 (from its talk page). If this IP is blocked(i.e. for further vandalism) then my account is also likely to be blocked??

P.S.2

Can I use this infobox

IP	This user's IP is 10.0.7.101.

instead of 202.79.18.2 on my user page. Or Should I avoid this IP infobox for avoiding further confusion. How Can I rectify this? Thank you --NAHID 16:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP 2

But if this IP is blocked (User talk:202.79.18.2, it has just vandalised Scholastica school) then would I be able to contribute without logged in? And in Infobox which IP should I write (10.0.7.101 or 202.79.18.2) ?Thanks --NAHID 19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching

Hi, I recently listed myself at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests. Since you are listed as available for coaching, I decided to ping you directly. I have been here 9 months and like requested templates, vandal wacking and some of the more policy-related areas. Looking to find my weak spots or help out in places I might have missed. I put in a co-request with Terence Ong. —Dgies^t c 19:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was very well thought out advice. I usually try to avoid AfD because it can turn ugly frequently, but I'm fairly involved in TfD and poke my head in at MfD and RfD occasionally. I guess these might be considered backwaters of the project. And regarding this behavior, I'm not quite sure on the "best practices" of vandal warnings. If its a first offence, I usually use a level-2 warning, unless it is particularly bad. But L2 warnings do not make any faith assumption^1, so when I see multiple edits of obvious vandalism, it sort of makes sense to send a L2 and a L3 to try and say "the first one could have been a mistake, but the second one is obviously naughty". What would you do if you saw a newly active user make several edits of obvious vandalism? Just go straight to an L3? —Dgies^t c 17:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh also on the RfA nom, Thank you. I was not intending to run now, but I might take you up on it in a few months. —Dgies^t c 17:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Per a suggestion from Terence Ong I have started the page User:Dgies/Admin coaching to centralize discussion. —Dgies^t c 04:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Request for page protection - Rightmove

You've recently declined declined my request for semi-protection of the Rightmove article; I was wondering what further options can be undertaken to stop the repetitive vandalism by user of that specific ISP? Thanks. -- Ratarsed 22:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Serves you right for giving me internal errors while trying to clear out RFPP :) – riana_dzasta 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification, or to fix SIAS International University page

Hello. I greatly appreciate you locking the SIAS International University Page. There are several individuals who are removing factual posts from the page, as well as editing the talk page. They work for www.plugintoyours.com who is ONLY recruiter for SIAS. They are a very right wing religous group and do not want that information out there. As such, they keep removing any and all posts concering their group. or they edit out their name, or just blank issues. I appreciate you locking the page, but I would like to request that the last revision you made (the change from www.plugintoyours.com/recruitment to the form that is there be fixed.) The people responsbile have found an old form that is no longer used by the unviersity, and cannot be submitted to and put it there to hide. I greatly appreciate any and all help you have given. Will Jones Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. 09:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I protected the page precisely to halt persistent disruption/spam.--Húsönd 17:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Hi, I moved Ostsiedlung to Settlement in the East according to WP:UE, but then I realized there was a consensus keeping it on Ostsiedlung, but now I am unable to fix that, could you please move it back to Ostsiedlung according to consensus please ? [1]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the award! It was a superb ending to a long day of tough translations at work :D -Yupik 19:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user Davo88

User:Davo88 has recently surfaced, and is making radical changes, reverts to several pages -- generally with obscure or sometimes no explanation at all. Consider this revert, where he removes fully sourced, academic, authoritative and verifiable quotes, and does not even bother to provide an Edit Summary: [2] (I have left extensive comments on that Talk page [3]). He did the same on a different page [4], despite my Edit Summary that has re-iterated the link to Encyclopedia Iranica (more was left on the Talk page itself). --AdilBaguirov 02:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Husond. It isn't true that I have "recently surfaced", as User:AdilBaguirov says. In fact, I've been constantly adding content to Armenian-related pages in general, and Armenian history related articles in particular for months now without encountering opposition. As such, he cannot say that I've "recently surfaced". I have clearly justified my reverts in the talk page of the article in question. I have also provided unbiased, highly authoritative, and scholarly sources to back my reverts, such as the Britannica website. It is Adil that suddenly interfered in this article and in other Armenian history related articles, such as the one about the Orontid Dynasty. Thanks. -- Davo88 04:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Britannica article does not override several articles from Iranica and other (including Armenian) sources. Also, I provided you another, more authoritative Britannica article that is specifically about Tigranes. In addition, your Britannica article is not mentioning Tigranes to be an ethnic Armenian or of Armenian origin/heritage/descent. Meanwhile, my sources do clearly show him being of Iranian origin, being ethnically Persian. So do not engage in edit warring and do not revert fully sourced, authoritative and verifiable information. --AdilBaguirov 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use my user talk page as an article talk page! :-) And please WP:AGF and embrace a WP:CIVIL discussion. Thank you.--Húsönd 05:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks (or obrigado, if you prefer) for your support in my recent RfA which passed unanimously - thus proving that you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time. I'm still coming to terms with the new functionality I have, but so far nothing bad has happened. As always, if there's anything you need to let me know, just drop me a line on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^talk to me[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi, Husond. Just popping along to say thanks for your very kind words and support at my RfA. Were you not a little surprised at how uncontroversial it was? I know I was, stunned in fact. Anyway, it means a lot coming from someone with your credentials, and I will not let you (or the others) down. Thanks again. Bubba hotep 21:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Prishtina

Thank you for ignoring my comments regarding a University of Prishtina move. You have not given any reasons for your decision to ignore the request. Instead you have succumbed to POV. What is your answer to my claim that the poll was hijacked by serbian editors. Anyone can win polls like that.

One more question, what do I need to do to move this article to a NPOV version?Sanmint 23:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Manual of style

up for discussion here:Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Portuguese-related articles) Galf 15:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're very welcome, I just got tired of the "preemptive translation" of portuguese names/stuffs. I realized something, should it be a manual of style or just naming conventions? I think we can gather material there and then "publish it---" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Galf (talk • contribs).

Not spam

That is not spam. To prevent a more blanaced discussion/votation people from no english speaking countries should know this as well as people form Canada and US were invited to "vote and commment" in the talk pages of those articles. Canada United States. That's mainly why I invited people from other articles to comment. AlexCovarrubias ^( Let's talk! ) 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested move

Hi Húsönd; I noticed your comment here. Did you get a chance to read all of the commentary below? The proposed article move isn't about whether the Srebrenica massacre was a genocide; it's about choosing the correct name based on Wikipedia naming policies. Virtually all reliable sources in English refer to this event as the Srebrenica massacre, and they continue to do so years after the initial genocide rulings. This proposed rename is somewhat equivalent to Wikipedia editors voting to rename the Holocaust article to Jewish Genocide, on the theory that we ought to explicitly refer to it as a genocide. But it's not up to us to decide that a particular name is the morally correct one; we can only record the name used by the outside world, and for this event, the name is Srebrenica massacre. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your reasoning, based on a straight reading of the Wikipedia naming policies ("use the most common name"). Just taking New York Times references as representative (all other reliable sources show a similar pattern), I found 50 hits for "srebrenica massacre" and 1 hit for "srebrenica genocide" -- and that one was in a letter to the editor, not written by a New York Times reporter. And 22 of those hits for Srebrenica massacre were published in the New York Times after the ICTY genocide ruling of 23 June 2004. We can speculate that the most common name in English might one day be Srebrenica Genocide, or the Srebrenica Holocaust, or something else altogether. But as of today, the name used overwhelmingly by reliable sources is Srebrenica massacre -- and that's the name that readers are most likely to look for on Wikipedia. Incidentally, if you look through the "Agree" comments in that survey, most of them appear to be based on the argument that "Srebrenica was a genocide" -- a point that's irrelevant to the article naming discussion. Based on that argument, it would be equally valid to rename Holocaust to Jewish Genocide. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Húsönd. Just in case you aren't paying much attention to that discussion, I mention that after seeing your opinion there I've expanded the "Examples of usage" sub-section to include a small sample of press usage from 26 February 2007 to 5 March 2007 (that is, since the ICJ Judgement). - If you had noticed that already, simply dismiss this post :-) Best regards, Ev 23:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trentino-South Tyrol

If you want, you can cast your vote also in Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol#Straw poll. --Checco 16:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for you

Not sure if you have it watchlisted, but I just updated User:Dgies/Admin coaching —dgies^t_c 19:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assembléia

Se escreve assim no Brazil, falou? hypercorrection, ho ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Galf (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Don't Worry

I didn't want Motorman to be unblocked yet anyway. He seems to always vandalise my work. He started a new account anyway. Thanks. Soopa hoops77 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.147.171.97 (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Europe

Hi, I'm outta here for tonight. I recently semi protected Europe it appears to be attacked by single editor just after I semi-protected the article it was edited with the summary "revert vandalism" which wasnt, can you keep an eye on the article I think it may need full protection for a short while. Gnangarra 16:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted some notes at ANI (here). The most recent reversion was from a 4-day old account - full protection shouldn't be needed, as any other sleeper accounts can be dealt with should they arise. Thanks. - David Oberst 18:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Trentino-South Tyrol

...if you want you can cast your vote in Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol#Could we go with? and Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol#3-way referndum. --Checco 17:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of billionaires (2006)

thank you for protecting the article, but you locked it for the wrong reason. the edit war of this morning was completely unrelated to the original request, and was completely and amicably resolved shortly after it ensued. --emerson7 | Talk 17:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, when protecting articles, admins will lock on the current version, not on the "right" or "wrong" version. Choosing a version where to lock is to directly involve in the dispute and admins who do this may not protect the article afterwards according to the protection policy. Protection does not endorse the current version of the article though. Now it's time to try to reach a consensus with the other users involved in the dispute, by requesting them to join a civil discussion on the talk page. Once an agreement has been made, the article shall be unprotected. If the other party refuses to talk, then it's legitimate to unprotect and revert to a previous version. Regards, Húsönd 18:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

no, no....you misunderstand me. the original request for was for the rampant vandalism prior to and completely unrelated to the mini-edit war. ....btw, was that a canned response? --emerson7 | Talk 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heh, heh....i thought as much. anyway, the war was resolved hours and hours before you did your wizardry...how do we fix things?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emerson7 (talk • contribs).

Inbox Alert

Good evening (GMT time); hope you're well, Husond. Just to let you know I've dropped you an e-mail via Special:Emailuser regarding a Wikipedia matter; whenever you've got a second, I'd appreciate your wisdom :) until then, happy editing!

Kind regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator intervention against vandalism

Hi- you said at the above page that my report against Jonawiki would be more appropriate at WP:ANI or WP:RCU. My purpose isn't to dispute this, just to bring to your attention that the instructions on how to deal with a possible sockpuppet direct readers to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Perhaps this instruction is incorrect? --G2bambino 23:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for the explanation. --G2bambino 01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing what I meant, not what I said

Oh my goodness, I'm so sorry I accidentally reported a fellow vandal fighter to AIV instead of the IP Vandal. Thank you so much for catching this, and doing what I meant to say. I've apologized to LuckyLuke as well, and I'll watch this more closely in the future. -Quintote 00:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing of closed discussion template

Since you closed the move discussion at Talk:Clamp (manga artists), you may be interested in the most recent edits. I'm involved in the discussion, so, I'm not sure of the best response. Neier 01:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not close active discussions then. The move template states it may be closed is consensus is reached, there is NO consensus and discussion is ongoing. Kyaa the Catlord 01:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can a discussion which is in progress be no longer active? I was in discussion on that page when you closed it. The move was still being actively debated. Period. Active. Discussion. Kyaa the Catlord 02:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. I've taken this to AN/I. Kyaa the Catlord 02:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Since the original move which spawned the debate was also "no consensus" shouldn't that move be reverted? (On the BLP noticeboard, there is evidence that it was a badly done move in the first place (the original talk page was lost). Kyaa the Catlord 02:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The page was moved unilaterally previously, the original pages' history was lost, etc. See [5] and the talk page for Clamp. Kyaa the Catlord 02:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And, just for the record, I apologize for coming off uncivil. I'm more than a bit frustrated by this whole mess. Kyaa the Catlord 02:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got the Library of Congress to display CLAMP as CLAMP, that's something. :P I'm also working on repairing the broken "names" on Amazon. Next time this comes around, there will be a lot less "evidence" of CLAMP being spelled Clamp for those who believe that MOSTM should be taken as gospel. This is Wikipedia, nothing is gospel (I love IAR, honest I do.). I'm also working up an article for one of the websites I'm involved with on this discussion, since the discussion is over I can link to the article without violating the spirit of CANVASS. So, yeah, I got something out of it. There wouldn't have been an article had I not lost. But hey, when eggs break, make omelettes! :P Kyaa the Catlord 03:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it was moved unilaterally, and Cyrus XIII specifically redirected its old name in order to block it from being moved back over the redirect (he said so in his edit summary), and that's an abuse of redirection. I think it should be moved back until a consensus arises in his favor. —pfahlstrom 04:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Payne2thamax

Hello, I just extended your block. I'm wondering if you saw the death threat in the edit summary? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain America and X-Men

Thanks for semi-protecting Cap's article. I was wondering if you might consider looking at the X-Men and see if you think it deserves the same. There's an anon IP who insists on included an extended list of members against the consensus on the talk page and won't engage in discussion. Whatever you decision, thanks for looking. CovenantD 01:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in touch

Hey Husond; how's things? anthonycfc ^[talk] 15:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl I of Austria

You appear to have mistakenly removed this listing from WP:RM, without closing the discussion (and it is too early to do so anyway).

You were probably looking at the listing from last April, which was indeed closed. But this was a new nomination nearly a year later, with the discussion at the bottom of the page Talk:Karl I of Austria. So I can see how you got confused, and request you restore the listing on WP:RM. Gene Nygaard 01:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably give the new discussion a new section name, and then the link can be fixed to take it to the right discussion. I suspect the problem was the automatically generated section name was the same as the unarchived one above. Gene Nygaard 01:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or add "Old" to the first section name. Gene Nygaard 01:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page, then figured this is a discussion that doesn't matter if its fragmented. There is of course the problem that people who were interested in putting their thoughts in on either side were misled as you were by the link to the closed discussion. Even though I supported it, I think it would be fairer to leave it open for a couple of days because of that. Because I was misled by it myself, and almost left before I stumbled on the new discussion. Gene Nygaard 01:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Keller

hello, you've protected the page from editing after user RolandR and I have been "warring"^[6]. for some reason, people who cannot read hebrew are trying to protect the article about adam keller from criticism^removal or criticism category his political group has recievecd (by cencoring it from wikipedia under various false precursors^"Removed allegation which doed not appear in source cited"). one of the more obvious reasons for this, is that RolandR has made himself a friend of real life Adam Keller (via contact with user abu ali) who is an editor here on wikipedia.^[7],[8]

user RolandR has recieved his share of warning about his "mistake" reverts and nonsense edits and chose to ignore them and revert yet again just before you protected the page.

warning issued: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RolandR#Adam_Keller
previous behaviour of user:
1) help request by user abu ali,2) Israel Shamir edit warring, 3) 24 hr block - removed at the request of user abu ali.

if you need more information on these users for coherancy of my complaint let me know, i will dig it up. Jaakobou 06:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Prishtina

Yes you did disregard my comments, Otherwise you wouldn't be saying this:

"The community has clearly spoken towards moving the article to its current name. Your claim that the article has been hijacked by Serbian users lacks evidence. "

The evidence can be found on the discussion page of the University of Prishtina, under the heading "Requested move to University of Pristina or Priština".

If you look at every single user profile that voted in favor, you'd find that my argument is valid, all but one of those editors are Serbs, some with strong political views. I strongly believe that the article has been hijacked by nationalists, who have used (seemingly a perfectly valid) an argument of "consistency" to distort the Internationally recognised name of the university. Regards Sanmint 23:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your Admin Coaching assignments

Your name is still listed at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Volunteers. The department is heavily backlogged with student's requests for coaches, and we need your help!

Note that the instructions may have changed since the last time you checked, and the department now follows a self-help process...

If you don't currently have a student, or if you believe you can handle another one, please select a student from the request list at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests and contact them. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.

If you are no longer available to coach, , please remove yourself from the volunteers list.

Thank you. The Transhumanist    03:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salpalinja

Hello. Just to ask some random admin (you had edited Continuation War recently), can you move Salpalinja to Salpa Line? The -linja part is Finnish for Line and it is in the same word. Other Wikis have their own words for line, Polish, Russian and Swedish. So I don't see reason why it should be in Finnish as other sources call it Salpa Line, and a Finnish word is harder to remember anyway. I can format the article properly then, I just can't move it because an older article had excisted on 'Salpa Line'. Thanks--Pudeo (Talk) 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Wrestling Entertainment roster

Just wanted to say thanks for protecting the page. Take care, Bmg916 ^Speak to Me 19:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, move this down to semi-protection. Only IP's and new(er) users were editing this. This is a constant problem at this article, not a protection-worthy edit war. This article was always semi-protected. Serious editors like myself need to edit this article. — Moe 20:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about the protection, and thanks. — Moe 20:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'North America (Americas)' ... again

Thank you for weighing in on this prior AfD. Even though an apparent consensus supported the prior AfD in some way, and the article has been deleted, this has reared its head again -- please peruse and weigh in. Thanks! Corticopia 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotu Matu'a/Matua and ethnic spelling used for titling

Hello? I received no reply or indication thereof in word or action to my last response to you regarding Wikipedian discrepancy in ethnic-name page-titling before one of your administrative peers stepped in and took the liberty of sealing the issue closed.

Perhaps I should have elaborated a bit more: If what I wrote of in my previous post is, as you seem to feel, indeed the case then please visit Talk:Chamorros and support the proposal there by moving the page to the more ethnically authentic "Chamoru", or at least voice the statements there that you left on the Hotu Matu'a talk page about the subject of ethnically accurate page naming irrespective of popular use in English. If on the other hand you have changed your mind and decided that what I was attempting to verify in my previous response to you is in fact not the case, then as a matter of consistency not to mention fairness, Hotu Matu'a should have been renamed "Hotu Matua". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adrigon (talk • contribs) 23:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• The reasons given for the two cases being supposedly unrelated do not illustrate their mutual exclusivity. It is correct that "Chamoru" is not the most common form used by English speakers. Neither is "Hotu Matu'a". But they are both the more indigenous spelling, and as I tried to illustrate, the vastly more common spelling "Hotu Matua" is even used in the context of its own culture of origin, which ought to dispel the idea that that spelling is simply "incorrect" and the result of "inaccuracy". Thus as per the WP:UE guidelines it would be spelled without the glottal stop inserted, like most if not all other Oceanic name titles on Wikipedia seem to be (e.g. Hawaii and Liliuokalani as opposed to "Hawai'i" and "Lili'uokalani"), and I fail to see how that would somehow "interfere with its English reading" (whatever that means). If anything I suspect the opposite would be so. And furthermore, I fail to see how titling the Chamorros article with its likewise more ethnically authentic spelling Chamoru somehow constitutes a problem, at least in any way that would differentiate the nature of its case from that of the other.

That said, at this point I no longer expect any sort of action to be taken one way or the other. But I find the given rationalizations vague at best. Adrigon 06:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acre, Israel

there's a wikipedia article by the name of acre reffering to the Israeli city of akko - this city has been by the name akko since even before the days of the kingdom of israel (i.e. pre-2000BC) and has only had it's name changed to akre by the muslim invasion (post-7th century AD) - i request help in changing the name of the article as i do not know the correct procedure to do so. Jaakobou 01:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the help, submission made, feel free to read my reasoning and to state an opinon (if you feel like it) - Talk - acre,israel Jaakobou 18:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pingback on admin coaching

Since you are more familiar with me than the average RfA follower, I'm wondering if you could pitch some hypothetical "hardball" RfA questions for me at User:Dgies/Admin coaching#Optional questions from... I'm getting a bit less timid and am thinking I might try my chances in a couple weeks, so any criticism you can give now would be very helpful. —dgies^t_c 03:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Saint Patrick's Day!

Happy St. Patrick's Day! May your blessings outnumber The shamrocks that grow, And may trouble avoid you Wherever you go. —an Irish blessing     —  $PЯINGrαgђ

The UCfD

Husond, I'm sorry you feel that way. At UCfD, admins are often forced to close discussions that they've participated in, because only three admins are closing debates at all, and until I became an admin recently, two sysops regularly were forced to close their own nominations.

In this instance, three admins had participated in the UCfD.

As for the decision, I tried to make the best decision I could, and even added your names to the Wikipedia:Wikipedians by pet list. UCfD is plagued by low participation, and close decisions are not uncommon. Since you've added another objection now, I'd gladly relist the usercat for deletion. Xiner (talk, email) 01:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. Xiner (talk, email) 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I understand your concerns. Xiner (talk, email) 02:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and please do consider making a daily stop at UCfD. I've already seen some people stop dropping by again. Xiner (talk, email) 02:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks in advance. Xiner (talk, email) 02:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UW future?

Hi Husond,

Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace template issue. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers ^Khukri 10:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Savage islands

That wasn't vandalism....that was hilarious! Galf 14:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: purple star

Yeah, I did edit it, but that was a mistake. At time I just wanted to see what the original version looked like, and I thought that pressing (rev) would just show me what the original was, not revert it straight off the bat, like in watch lists and recent changes. Accordingly, I changed it back again, but unfortunately those edits show up as two changes. I didn't modify the file, I just made a mistake. Thanks, Smomo 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aure, Norway

Boa tardes / Blessaður, The article Aure, Norway seems to be getting a huge lot of attention from vandals these days, and I just don’t have the time and energy to keep «devandalising» it. Any way to put it on semi-protect for now & to block those logged-in users who vandalise it? Thanks! :-] Olve 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]