This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sundostund. 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.
I am writing a research paper on the history of Libyan political personnel and came across a wiki article you contributed to, which I translated from Arabic to English using google. The article is entitled “General People’s Committee” and can be accessed as follows: http://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/اللجنة_الشعبية_العامة
This article is exactly what I’m looking for, but there is a historical hole from 1990 – 2006. Do you have any idea why these dates are missing from the article? Do you have any information on this topic pertaining to 1990 – 2006 or know of any other sources I can consult to find the missing information?
I have to submit my paper to my professor by Monday morning, so if you could prove any help at all, I would truly appreciate it! Please feel free to contact me directly via e-mail at agreen789@yahoo.com.
Thank you in advance for your time and hope to hear from you soon!
Hello, Sundostund. You have new messages at Talk:Helle Thorning-Schmidt. Message added 17:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You have performed vandalism on the Helle Thorning-Schmidt article multiple times today and multiple times over the past few days. If you repeat your vandalism, I will have to report you. Carstensen (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Nepal. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Hi, if you can contribute more to the article, please do so. However, please do not remove the portrait of the Prime ministers. I have tried hard to arrange that table. Any help would be good actually. But please do not remove the contents.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Sundostund. You have new messages at Talk:List of kings of Iraq. Message added 11:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Why did you restore the obviously false claim that Kim Il-sung became general secretary of the Communist Party at the age of 13? In fact, he was never the party's general secretary and only took a position of leadership when he was appointed by the Soviets after World War IL. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. When you recently edited Lexi Love, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sicilian people (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Why do you keep reverting to the old version without any explanation? The colored background impede the readers' ability to read the text. The new version is better. --◅PRODUCER(TALK)13:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not agree with that whatsoever. The colored background does not impede the readers' ability to read the text. The new version isn't better in any way. -- Sundostund (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is. There is absolutely no point in filling every box of the incumbents' information with their party color. The simplistic approach which you repeatedly revert without any explanation whatsoever is better and is also used in other articles including List of Presidents of Senegal for example. I sense a feeling of WP:OWN here. --◅PRODUCER(TALK)13:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
No, it isn't. As I said, countless lists on WP are edited in the same way. You have no right to make such big remodeling without consent of other users. As for WP:OWN, only thing I own on Wiki is my user page. -- Sundostund (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
That does not make them correct or better and given that you're active in these type of articles it could be attributed to you and it does not necessarily represent a consensus. I have also noted you've "colorized" the List of German presidents article which was perfectly fine the way it was before [1]. As for the Prime Ministers of Spain example it looks incredibly distracting. Your statement of needing "consent" is very typical of those who exhibit owning behavior. --◅PRODUCER(TALK)14:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Its not distracting in any way. Mine version of this lists looks much better and its much wider accepted on WP than yours. Its the case on List of German presidents, List of Prime Ministers of Spain and many more. We have disagreement on this, but I hope that wouldn't lead to an edit war. You absolutely need consent of other editors if you want to make constructive edits here. You can't fly solo on WP. -- Sundostund (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
It's that case because you changed them and, again, simply because others do it "that way" does not mean it is better. Take a look at the List of Chancellors of Germany article. The color of the party is represented on the left side (although some boxes are admittedly a bit thin), it's subtle and gets the job done. It's much easier to read and it does not hit the user with a rainbow of colors. --◅PRODUCER(TALK)14:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't changed them, so it's not an argument for me to say its better, others did it that way and I agree with them. Its widely accepted style on WP. Anyone who is literate can read on that version, colors aren't any obstacle. Your version of list is only sometime used on WP (as in case of List of Chancellors of Germany). Does it mean its better because you changed it, or because you agree with others work? No. That style is very rarely used here, just accept that fact. -- Sundostund (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm very active in these types of articles because I'm interested in them (and in politics as a whole), and I make all sort of changes to them (including "colorizing" some of them myself). I see nothing wrong in that. You said: So what if one style may be more popular than the other? If you say that, than I'll say this: So what if you like much less popular style? You think that you can impose it by edit warring? I don't think so. Is there anything which can prove your style is better or more informative? Nothing, I say. Your style just make articles more decorative (according to your opinion). You listed your versions of preferred articles, I listed mine. -- Sundostund (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
You can stop wasting your time listing articles as they prove nothing. I stated your style is done fore decorative purposes not mine - do not twist my words around. You are the one that has failed to provide any reasoning as to why the articles should be "colorized" and you are the one who wishes to push it in by edit warring. --◅PRODUCER(TALK)20:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll stop listing, I see it hurts you to see amount of articles which are edited in "my way". If you read carefully, you'll see that I too stated that "your" style have decorative purposes only, nothing else. It doesn't expand our knowledge here in any way. There's nothing which can prove your style is better or more informative. Next, you stated: So what if one style may be more popular than the other? Well, because of this: Its more popular style because majority of users recognize it as more suitable for lists of heads of states and governments. Next, you're the one who wishes to push in your much less popular and much less used style by edit warring. You must have consent of other users and collaborate with them if you want to have any future as an editor here. -- Sundostund (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, please tell me do you plan to push this essentially silly thing for much longer, because I have some plans for tonight. Some of us have a real life, you know? :)) -- Sundostund (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Beside that, I'm sure you waste your time here; you need to go to "fight" in discussion about chetniks, ustase, collaborators, partisans etc. I saw its your favorite activity here on WP. -- Sundostund (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll create a post at WikiProject Politics asking for the input of other users as we are obviously getting nowhere. I'm familiar with Wikipedia's policies as I've been here since 2008 so enough of the lecturing. Lacking your "consent" does not give you the power to rule over the articles nor the right to act in this condescending attitude. --◅PRODUCER(TALK)20:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
As you wish. I'm not familiar with it, because I never had a reason to asking for the input of other users, especially not because of a color style dispute. If you want to do that because of these 4 lists and color style on them, instead to find some solution by ourselves, ok. -- Sundostund (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I was looking at your profile, and you seem to have a lot of interesting opinions on the world. I am from the USA, but I too believe that it is an imperial power. I oppose US intervention into other nations. I'd like to talk about politics with you, so feel free to send me an email--loufferty@gmail.com
In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you.
Please note that WP:SPLIT specifically instructs users to seek consensus if their WP:BOLD splits are opposed. You are currently edit-warring over a half-dozen articles to introduce opposed article splits. You were bold, and you were reverted - now discuss. I'd like it if I didn't have to write more reports today: please revert yourself and seek consensus. I assure you that's the only way your changes will remain. -- Director(talk)12:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
As you said yourself, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. I did nothing in a disruptive way here, I try to contribute to certain articles. Next, as you can see, I'm not engaged in a edit war, I know very well that WP:SPLIT specifically instructs users to seek consensus if their WP:BOLD splits are opposed. --Sundostund (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Sundostund, you are invited!
You're invited to be a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Belgrade, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the University of Belgrade. To accept this invitation, click here! Articles related to other universities in Belgrade, Serbia and Southeast Europe may be discussed as well. This helps share information and foster knowledge about higher education in the region.
Politics of Rhodesia template
I'm not sure this is really necessary. We have the Rhodesian topics navigation box at the bottom of the page and it has all the links present in this template. On my screen, the Politics of Rhodesia template here creates a vast amount of whitespace between the list of parties and the list of prime ministers, and it really doesn't look good. What do you think? —Cliftonian(talk)22:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I really think we should keep in its place. That political template (as all other similar templates) was made to be part of major articles about a country's politics, and Prime Minister of Rhodesia really is such an article. I strongly prefer to keep it. I don't think that amount of whitespace between the list of parties and the list of prime ministers doesn't look good, but if you want we can remove the list of parties? Then the space will be much lesser. By the way, sorry because I earlier removed your improvements to the article, it was really unintentional. Cheers!--Sundostund (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, if we remove the list of parties then the space will be more on my screen... I think a better solution might be for us to add more prose to the article. I will look into this at some point. Thanks for the reply, well done on the work on the page, and don't worry about reverting my additions, I had a feeling it wasn't on purpose. —Cliftonian(talk)22:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I prefer any solution, except removing the template. If you want, we can add more prose to to the article, I agree with that. I also support removing the list of parties, if you find at some point that its appropriate thing to do. I'm glad that you like my work on the page! I must say it took quite a time today to do all that work. I used the Prime Minister of South Africa article as a model for what I wanted to do here, and I think it turned out quite well. I really had no intention to revert your additions, so I'm glad that you didn't make an impression that I did it on purpose. --Sundostund (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Kindly verify them before deleting any content from these articles. I have already verified them.
--Plutonics (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Please do not edit these pages, you are deleting important facts. Stop attacking these pages, or i will report you. --Plutonics (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Capitalization of "present"
Please stop trying to capitalize "present" in the section title "List of Presidents of Egypt (1953–present)" of List of Presidents of Egypt. According to MOS:HEAD, capitalization should be in sentence format, not title format, so only the first word in a header needs to be capitalized. Furthermore, the formatting "####–present" with a lowercase-p is universal throughout Wikipedia. Trinitresque (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed that you have removed the pre-independence speakers of the Croatian Sabor. I wonder why? I demand an explanation. I guess they are of great interest for the viewers. Mbakkel221:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I've been pinged on my talk page about this and also notice that Mbakkel added a question about it to the talk page for the article (which is the more appropriate place to discuss this). A response would be valued by Mbakkel for sure! Thanks everyone for contributing to Wikipedia. SarahStierch (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Odd edits
I'm slightly bemused by some of your edits at O le Ao o le Malo. This appears to be a blind revert of my previous edit which fixed the width issue you'd introduced into the table. Why did you do that? There is then a series of edits in which you just change the width percentage.[5][6][7][8] Just curious as to why you aren't using the show preview button? It took 12 edits just to make these changes, which strikes me as a little odd. Number5711:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I am completely aware that I made a mistake when I entered an edit war yesterday. I also know that I am blocked because I breached WP:ARBMAC rules. I completely recognize my guilt here. All of that was very stupid thing to do, and I promise that I will not continue to do that. If you look my edit history, you will see that I am not a vandal, but constructive member of this community, and that I only want to improve this encyclopedia. I just want an opportunity to continue my work here. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Declined because we'd need to have a community discussion about it. This template isn't really meant for situations that need discussion, so your use of the AEBLOCK appeal template down below here makes the use of this template pointless. Nyttend (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Sorry, but I did something wrong when declining the unblock. Feel free to fix it yourself if you know how; I'm going to ask for help at the Help Desk, so you can expect someone else to fix the code before long. Nyttend (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sundostund
Proxied to WP:AN.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
Statement by Sundostund
I am completely aware that I made a mistake when I entered an edit war yesterday. I also know that I am blocked because I breached WP:ARBMAC rules. I completely recognize my guilt here. All of that was very stupid thing to do, and I promise that I will not continue to do that. If you look my edit history, you will see that I am not a vandal, but constructive member of this community, and that I only want to improve this encyclopedia. I just want an opportunity to continue my work here. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Toddst1
Statement by (involved editor 1)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sundostund
Result of the appeal by Sundostund
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
