User talk:Husond/Archive 13

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.

Hello Anthony. I am flattered by your comment and I would be honored to coach you. However, I'm currently experiencing some stressful real life problems and I might not be able to give you proper attention until the end of this month. After this turbulent period, I will do my best to provide you with all the help you might need. I hope that's okay with you. Tell me if it is. Best regards, Húsönd 21:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no problem - I'm overjoyed to be accepted! It's up to you - if you want to start now, even if your inactive, that's up to you - or if you want to leave it a while, I'm not to fussed ~ Anthony 21:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, I think the information regarding Sanskrit were inserted in purpose by North Indians, which they always do against Tamil language. The talk point of the artile in puposely diverted in every loop corner to give an impression that Tamil laguage evolved or depend on Sanskrit language and scholars. If you carefully read the contributors of those lines its by the North Indian guys. Please try to make this article more closer to truth by removing those diverting passage or make a new one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.101.208.19 (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I am not directly involved with this article/subject, sorry. :-/ --Húsönd 21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Husond, I'm sorry to hear that you're stressed. Take all the time you need, and I hope everything works itself out. E-mail's open if you need to offload! All the best, – Riana ^ऋ 06:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Hope you are doing well. – Riana ^ऋ 12:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. If you're going on a Wikibreak we will miss you very much, but I can sincerely understand if you wouldn't like Wikipedia become more important to you than real life. Farewell. Michaelas¹⁰ 19:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to check semi-protection instead of protection in the TWINKLE window ... I guess that's what you get when you rely on TWINKLE too heavily. As for reading up on policy, I now consider myself most familiar (please do not laugh) with the deletion and protection policies (I read the latter months ago many times). I mischecked the worst box possible in the twinkleprotect.js window. ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 01:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't visit the page frequently (unlike me and WP:AIV), but I will start to. Btw, how do you like that smiley? ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 01:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too true for words (oh wait ... ;-) ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 01:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alô. Como podes ver, eu não tenho estado muito activo nos ultimos dois meses, por isso penso que não te poderia ajudar com o modelo que queres aplicar no Portal:Portugal. Se não te importares que a minha ajuda seja bastante esporádica, então podes contar comigo. E sim, penso que é um bom modelo e q pode funcionar bastante bem.--Saoshyant ^{talk / contribs} (please join WP:Portugal or WP:SPOKEN) 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are interested in this project... --Michkalas 15:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Husond - when you have a spare second, I've booted an email your way. However, I noticed you're having a bit of a difficult time at the moment.

My friend - take care of yourself; best wishes, goodwill with whatever you're going through, and aim for the light at the end of the tunnel. You can get through whatever this is, so don't let it get you down.

Don't concentrate on Wikipedia at the moment - just get yourself better.

Best regards,
AGK 21:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Husond, firstly, whatever problems you have in real life, I truly hope you get them sorted. Real life is more important than wikipedia so take as much time as you need off the project. Please let me know if you wish to talk about anything. Secondally, I just saw your reply to Majorly's RfA comment on your oppose, I think it was a very dilligent move, and I am sure you still have Majorly's respect, as you do mine, I hope this helps.....

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I award you this barnstar for all your administrative tasks, especially taking action if another user has a concern Ryan Postlethwaite 22:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. The fact that I think you are a good-faith editor certainly won't change just because of that. I still look in you, as I do of Majorly, Essjay, who unfortunately decided to retire, Redux, Prodego and Persian Poet Gal, whom you nominated to be an administrator, as one of the finest in the WP:AGF aspect. I just wish every user would be like that, but then again, just like curing cancer, it's just too good to be true and slim to none. And, if you would want my rationale for the RfA support, I think that the questions were illrelevant to being a good administrator, and because of Majorly's point on his support, I decided to support as well for the same reason.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently blocked the IP 24.5.130.15 ; it's back, with unchanged behavior. A further block might be in order? Hornplease 10:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. When an unregistered user vandalizes after their block expires, they must be warned and then reported to WP:AIV if they transgress a final warning.--Húsönd 10:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, left a warning. Thanks! Hornplease 11:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...when you have a moment, that is; until then, I reiterate - look after yourself, my friend ~ Anthony 15:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and again... Anthony 21:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kven's at it again [1], [2]. Looks like a harsh, evil, Stalinist suppression of the Truth(tm) (aka semi-protection) is necessary again. --Illythr 20:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, if it's sock abuse, WP:RCU should be the adequate procedure. Húsönd 22:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious insertion of that very same "Contentious history views" section through a single purpose account and using the same rhetoric in his edit summaries is not enough? Sigh, I guess I'll have to do it again, if he keeps it up... --Illythr 02:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However, I would still have to investigate the editting pattern of the banned user, and unfortunately I am rather busy these days...--Húsönd 11:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. --Illythr 13:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Husond. I noticed on the admin coaching status page that you have no current users who you are coaching and it seems you are active so I was wondering if you could be my admin coach, I've been here for 6 monts or so had one doomed RfA, one close one (which originally I wasn't going to accept and other editors have offered to nominate me, I've saidI'd like to leave it until about June/July and I was wondering if you could be my coach. With thanks...Tellyaddict 11:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I wont hassle you if you are busy in real life, but if you just want to tell me when your ready to begin the feel free, I'm only every day, whenever is more appropriate for you. Cheers! Tellyaddict 11:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Husond, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course. Thank you once more, · AndonicO Talk

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you don't have any admin coaching students at the moment, and was wondering if you'd like to take me on board. I'm currently in an RfA that's likely to fail due to lack of experience, so I'm hoping you could help me with this. Thanks! ~ G1ggy! _Reply 04:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the confirmation. Sorry, I didn't know you already had students (the admin coaching page said you were free). I look forward to getting started, when you have the time. Thanks again =D ~ G1ggy! _Reply 21:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, still interested.G1ggy ^{Stalk - Talk - Chalk} 03:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Husond, if you're still up for Admin coaching, could you please reply (on my talk page). Thanks G1ggy ^{Talk - Chalk} 00:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd much rather have a harsh coach then have someone lie about my ability. So yeah, I'll do my best to put up with you, I'm sure it'll be worth it. Just a warning, if you plan on starting now (and I'm not sure how the whole system works, hence this), I'll be logging off in about 20 minutes. So don't expect anything fast. Also, do you have any suggested reading in terms of how the program works? G1ggy ^{Talk - Chalk} 02:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey :). I don't know if you remember, but a while back, you started talking me into considering adminship. I told you I wanted to have more knowledge of the Wikipedia's processes. Well, User:W.marsh told me to consider it again yesterday, and to be honest I am toying with the idea for a few days now. So I was wondering if you could have a look at my recent and past contributions, and tell me how you feel about the whole idea. Finally, if you're thrilled about my contribution and think Wikipedia should not spend a day without me having the tag, would you consider co-nominating me? You're of course under no obligation to do any of this, but I would be honored (even by a constructive "no way" answer, I'm always eager to get feedback!). -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be opposed to a co-nom, as I have spent alot of time working with Lucas and think he would make a fine admin? ^Khukri 15:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here you go. ^Khukri 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your nomination. As I said to Khukri, I am not in a hurry so don't worry about the time that took ;). I'll draft the answers later today and probably list it tonight. Thanks again for your confidence! -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alea jacta est, it is listed! -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The header says it all. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 21:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was just wondering if you still were unpacking after moving or something. :-) ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 11:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening (GMT time) Husond; I'd like to thank you for supporting, opposing, commenting, nominating, reading, editing, promoting and/or anything else that you may have done for my successful request for adminship. As a result of the discussion, I'm pleased to inform you that I'm now a Administrator! I've already been making use of my new tools, so if there's anything I can do, give me a shout!

---

Kindest regards,
Anthony 22:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just saw the Letterkenny Retail Park article. It uses 15 fair use logos to say what stores are in the mall. I'm sure it is a violation of some policy, but I can't seem to find it. I remember reading something about the decorative use of fair use images, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. Please help if you can. Thank you. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The issue has already been adressed by User:Iamunknown. Thanks anyway! Yours truly, Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 21:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by copying this message and posting it their talk page, along with a friendly message.

I refer to your message.

Since you are a Portuguese masquerading under an Icelandic identity, your accusation of "vandalism" rings distinctly hollow. It is not I who is seeking to undermine the integrity of English Wikipedia, but you.

As you well know:

(1) This is an article about the Autonomous Community of Galicia, a political entity within Spain.

(2) The official name of this entity in BOTH Spanish AND Galician is "Galicia", not "Galiza". As the text further down makes clear, the term "Galiza" (identical to the name of the region in Portuguese) is championed by sectors of Galician nationalism who abhor anything or any term which smacks of "Spanishness".

(3) The version of the article you are seeking to peddle is misleading by virtue of giving the impression that the spelling "Galiza" enjoys some sort of co-official status with "Galicia". It does not.

I do not know whether you are simply ignorant of the true position, or disingenuously giving vent to some anti-Spanish cum Galician nationalist agenda of your own. Either way, please do not insult my intelligence (or that of other English Wikipedia) users by posing as a disinterested or impartial adjudicator on this issue.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.2.108.194 (talk • contribs).

Hey - just a heads up. I reverted you at Lucasbfr's RfA above because you seemed to have removed what was a legitimate apology to the previous comment. Not sure whether it was an accident or if I missed something? Feel free to revert me if I did. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 22:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Husond, checked the contribs and all should be removed. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK - it just seemed a little harsh to remove his apology but not his original comment, though I do entirely agree with you about removing the spamming of irrelevant comments. I'll revert myself and leave you to fix it then - don't want to get in the way. Will (aka Wimt) 23:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the second RfA troll within a week. Acalamari 23:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, that's the first thing I checked when I saw the messages. I was thinking it was a new user making an honest mistake...obviously I was wrong. Acalamari 23:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the above answers a query I was just about to ask re my RfA. I had already noticed from the editors contrib history that there was a lot of supports for a lot of other RfA's, so I thought it may have been that. Anyhow, I'm cool. LessHeard vanU 12:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Husond has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Husond's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Husond! Love, Phaedriel 00:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Yay, happy Husond's day! :) – Riana_ऋ 03:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loquats eh? I'll have to try those the next time I'm in China ;) – Riana ⁂ 08:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drink to that. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olive or twist? Good day, Husond. bibliomaniac15 06:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest Husond, I'm totally at a loss of words to express to you how speechless I am at the breathtaking poem you've gifted me, not to mention you warm and kind message - it was totally unexpected, and I will cherish it for life. You had no way to know this, but your selection of Luís de Camões for me is wonderful and most apt, since he's by far my favorite Portuguese poet! Whenever I read the opening words for Canto I, I get shivers by feeling, almost physically, the great words, the great meanings that stem from it... Arms and the heroes, who from Lisbon's shore, through seas where sail was never spread before, Beyond where Ceylon lifts her spicy breast, And waves her woods above the watery waste, With prowess more than human forced their way, To the fair kingdoms of the rising day... What wars they waged, what seas, what dangers passed, What glorious empire crowned their toils at last?... *shivers!*

It is beautiful and inspiring to meet you, and that our first interactions has been so amazing. I'm sure there's much we can share, and talk about, and I won't let my eagerness and lack of sleep ruin it... so please, do open your mailbox later, will you please? :) Love, Phaedriel - 08:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Husond, happy Husond day! I have simply got to read the Lusiads someday. --Kyoko 16:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear Husond, I wish I wasn't so sleepy now to tell you the beautiful thoughts that crossed my mind imagining your special day, and following your steps in my imagination through the marvelous streets of Lisbon... so like I promised you, (and I always keep my promises!) I'll save them all for now and pour them in your mailbox as soon as my human capacities permit! I will tell you now, tho, that our talks sparked in me the desire to re-read the Lusiads again, and I've been going through different parts that I remembered, and rediscovering them in all their might and beauty... Let the world tremble as it senses, All you're about to accomplish, Africa's land and Oriental seas, The promised theatre of your victories... I'll save the rest of my rants for your mailbox, I swear :) I didn't want to go to bed without wishing you a beautiful day, and thanking you for your warms thoughts once again. Love you, Phaedriel - 07:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aww well, I'm getting out of school soon :-) Anyway, I've answered those questions / requests you posted. Good day, ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 15:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't say I didn't expect that :P when I was answering those questions I had limited time and went on an arbitrary impulse, but still, NO EXCUSES! :) ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 01:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound so unforgiving (ignorant, audacious, anti-establishment, etc...), but I think that an admin should do what is best for the site, and if a very disruptive vandal was vandalizing yesterday, I think that IAR applies, but that's just me. (i.e. not what is within a policy, but within the realm of common sense.) ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 01:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if it is a very disruptive sockpuppet of a banned user which has not edited today, but vandalized prolificly yesterday, then it and the puppet-master should be blocked, since the sockpuppet master would invariably create more accounts. In my opinion, but probably not in your's, the snowball clause applies, since the user will -- as above stated -- invariably create more socks. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 01:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I didn't mention sockpuppets in the 3rd reply, that was the very notion from which the discussion came. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 02:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that if a very disruptive sockpuppet was not blocked on the day of the disruption, and — per WP:SNOW — there was a snowball's chance in hell that the sock would not return and vandalize again, then the user should be blocked to protect the site. That's the platform for the argument above. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cease to know what effect this will have on your judgment of me, but let me plead my case once more. Above, I was not talking about actual policies, but rather the hypothetical conversation of what would happen if Wikipedia were governed by common sense and not policies. IAR and SNOW were interspersed into the discussion because they were the only policies that place much emphasis at all on common sense. Also, I know the purpose of each: SNOW — for closing a discussion involving !votes where a single outcome is inevitable (i.e. closing on common sense); IAR — used for ignoring a rule when not doing so would not help the site, and it is normally (not always, but normally) self-evident when one should do so. Thanks, ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 19:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was not referring to question #7 in my reply 2 posts ago, rather to the actual discussion of the 3rd post in this section. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 19:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I'm not mad at you. I acknowledge that I made a mistake, but I thought we were talking about 2 different things as I was talking about a comment made here and you were talking about one of the coaching questions. I'll take your advice and read up on WP:PROT, WP:SNOW, and WP:BLOCK, but not WP:DP, because I feel that I am involved in enough deletion discussions, in addition to the fact that you didn't mention that I should read it :p ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 15:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a page which describes how I perceive IAR and SNOW. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 16:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you review my answers on said page. Thanks for the pic of saturn's moon, btw. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 02:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking that, but a paragraph in WP:SNOW said otherwise, and frankly, that struck me as a bit odd. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 21:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi can you tell me how you make your signature the blue Hús green ö and blue nd

how is that done ? --Gunnaraztek 21:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Húsönd, thanks for the puffin! I think puffins somehow promote WikiLove because they remind me of clowns. Thanks again! --Kyoko 11:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thought that this required your attention. You blocked 66.215.236.211 for 12 hours over 3RR. However, twenty minutes later, he announces that he has a new account on his IP's talk page. ' 12:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP address 204.153.84.10 is not a spambot. I don't know why you blocked it?BOZ 15:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.  :) BOZ 15:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going by a list of characters in a reference book and making a note as to which ones were having an involvement in Avengers: The Initiative to begin discussion on the subject. If that's not appropriate, I did not realize it. BOZ 15:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really didn't mind the block, considering I couldn't edit during the time anyway. I just wish you woulda warned me first.--Tempest115 19:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:G1ggy/Coach - Here you go. Logging off now, away tomorrow. Maybe Monday (I'm in Australia btw., so the time zone is different, but I'm usually on around this time). G1ggy ^{Talk - Chalk} 02:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the duck, greatly appreciated. Hopefully we can get some coaching done soon =D G1ggy! 01:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to respond to comments on the coaching page, or here? G1ggy! 00:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've considered all the comments, and have started more work in the areas suggested. G1ggy! 00:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening (UTC time), Husond. I've noticed all of the hard work you've put forth in an effort to help ready Magnus animum for adminship, and I was wondering if you would do the same for me. Please let me hear read your thoughts on my talk page (does that make me sound like a mindreader?). :-) *Cremepuff222* 18:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 18:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what husond, you sit back, have a beer, and I'll take this one on for you ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes, he did! I'm already having a great time, so I'm sure Ryan here is going to help me a lot. Thanks for helping Magnus, too (though I think he isn't feeling very happy right now..., we talk on IRC). (Pardon the cliché, but) Happy editing! :) *Cremepuff222* 00:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel fine; I just got up at 11:00 in the morning, that's all. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 01:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the drinks, I will enjoy them.....after my exams next week! Ryan Postlethwaite 01:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have an email reply, when you're ready ;-) see you soon!

Kindest regards,
Anthøny 22:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the welcome, and I've decided I'm not going to use my tools wisely but I'm going to take over the world. Well anyway back to reality. Cheers for the support and any insider tips of what to do, what not to do please let me know. I have no intention of going flying into using the tools, though I will certainly honour my pledges within the RfA, most problem within CSD, so only help would be appreciated. Cheers again. ^Khukri 16:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Husond, you originally blocked me on March 8 for comments I made toward Kemor in my edit summaries. Canadien Caeser than blocked indefinately blocked me. I've been blocked for over 2months and Caeser hasnt been around in a month. My Feud with Kemor is over and I've learned my lesson. Being that you originally blocked me, I'm respectfully asking you to unblock me. Payne2thamax

Hi Husond,

I wanted to ask you if you would like to train me as part of the admin coach program. «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 01:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done: User:Snowolf/Admin coaching «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 05:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm jumping the gun, but when do you think I should make an RfA subpage? ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 03:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured I was; I'll answer the questions more responsibly this time :-) ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 03:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 03:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be so pushy, but when are you going to place those questions @ User:Magnus animum/Coach? Not meaning to be pushy, ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 00:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Bows* Thank you honorable Hus-San. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 00:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On an ironic note, I got an Anti-Vandalism Barnstar from a sockpuppet. Weird, huh? ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 00:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do remember seeing that. Socks and vandals are funny sometimes, you do have to admit. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 00:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 01:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reduce indent) Y Re-anwered. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huzaa! ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 02:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All questions answered. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 21:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I won't be online as much as I have been due to some real-life goings-on, but I think I'll be online enough. How does after 4 'o clock every day sound to you? ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠIмυМ ≈ √∞ 00:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean for the time in which the RfA is taking place, would every day after 4 'o clock suffice? ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠIмυМ ≈ √∞ 01:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 7 days during which wikipedians can vote. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠIмυМ ≈ √∞ 01:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good as that was my main point of worry for undergoing an RFA this summer. Good to hear that from one who has undergone the water-torture himself :) ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠIмυМ ≈ √∞ 01:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assistance. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Husond, just to let you know I quoted your message at the top of your userpage (This page is best viewed using...) on my userpage, as a Random Quote. –Sebi ~ 08:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, exactly how much vandalism constitutes "enough recent activity"? Groupthink 02:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good work as well, and the detailed answer. Groupthink 03:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Husond,

Why was Schalliol deleted?

• It clearly meets notability requirements now and was nearly completely different from when you intitally flagged it.
• It was brought into line with exactly your comments in the previous delete page. (i.e. Initial definition, notability requirements, removal of individuals from the page.)
• It is not different from other established Surname pages, such as Keats and others. In fact, Schalliol has more detailed and historically significant information.
• There were more keeps than deletes.

Thank you AoS XseedX 15:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Husond. Thank you so much for your kind support in my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I feel thrilled to have earned your confidence and hope to live up to your expectations. Please let me know if I ever mess up :) Best wishes, PeaceNT 05:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support at my RFA. It ended successfully and I am now a glorified janitor. If I can be of any assistance please don't hesitate to contact me through my talk page. Happy editing! —Ocatecir ^Talk 18:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious how you decided there was no consensus when there was about 60% in favor of the move just on raw votes alone. Furthermore, clearly some of the votes for Dokdo had no reason listed (just a signature) or were not in line with policy. By the rules, these should be discounted. It seems that with far fewer than 40% in favor of keeping it, the result is there is no consensus for it to stay--exactly how high of a bar do we need if 60% isn't enough even when we do consider the votes that aren't according to policy? —LactoseTI^T 17:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might add this is additionally surprising considering that quite a few admins voted (presumably with additional familiarity with policy) and none chose the "stay" option, which clearly had some political motivations behind it. —LactoseTI^T 17:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. While a 70-75% bar is quite high (much higher than the previous bar that was set for RM's), you probably would get that if you discounted the votes with just signatures with no reasons (as you are supposed to) and looked for editors who had over 100 edits (the ones with less than 50 were clearly out). Considering there was literally a nationwide canvassing attempt (published in the national news) on one side of the poll, and not the other (there were no corresponding posts in Japan), it further illustrates how the poll was tilted to one side. I might humbly suggest you leave it open for a few more days if you want your 70-75% even with unestablished editors. 4-5 votes were trickling in daily.

One more thing, your rationale for it being NPOV is quite disturbing. This island is only a few square acres. If someone knocks the five temporary guards standing on it off tomorrow, do we switch it to the then controlling power? How about when they get knocked off again? This is one major reason why physical control doesn't determine naming policy here. As was pointed out on the page, virtually all references to this article are about the conflict. It's not an article about a random piece of land, it's an article about a conflict--one that Wikipedia has chosen a single side as the title. Of course, since we have a NPOV policy, this clearly implies Wikipedia is asserting who should have control. —LactoseTI^T 20:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your criteria which is "the rocks are, as stated, under actual possession of the Republic of Korea" is very dangerous for the peace of the world. With this, the solution by "Military power" is demanded. Status by the United Nations is "Sovereignty Unsettled."[3] This criteria violates International Law[4] and Charter of the United Nations, too.--Opp2 23:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. However, I cannot consent. Because you didn't prove that your criteria is NPOV.

PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie P148

First, it would be better if the principle were expressed as one of acquiescence, since, if a pierce of territory were occupied by an aggressor, the 'prescribing' state would have a peaceful and uninterrupted possession, but there would be no acquiescence.

The second problem is to decide what suffices to prevent possession from being peaceful and uninterrupted. In principle the answer is clear: any conduct indicating a lack of acquiescence. Thus protests will be sufficient. In the Chamizal arbitration United states claimed, as against Mexico (SYC.) Furthermore, possession must be peaceable to provide a basis for prescription, and, in the opinion of the Commissioners, diplomatic protests by Mexico prevented title arising. A failure to take action which might lead to violence could not be held to jeopardize Mexican rights.

Textbook on International Law by Martin Dixon

The exercise of state power over territory must be peaceful in the sense that it is not challenged by other states.

Your criteria contradicts International Law. Which your criteria or International Law is NPOV?

My insistence is not exaggerated. Title by the conquest became illegal to prevent the military power solution since WW1. And no protest by another country become the requirement for the territory acquisition . As follows, even the scholar who is supporting the insistence of South Korea says.

Korea has been unreceptive to Japan's initiatives to submit the dispute to the ICJ, saying that there is no dispute to resolve. This position may be viewed later by a tribunal as inconsistent with the obligation of every state to resolve disputes peaceably, and Korea may be asked to explain whether the ICJ was in some way an inadequate or unfair forum.[5]PP23

I want the source that proves your criteria is not KPOV but NPOV.--Opp2 02:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment and decision. I hope that territorial disputes all over the world to be solved by ICJ and International law for peace.--Opp2 01:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bearing with me on this. I really appreciate you taking the time to read my comments rather than just brushing me off (you probably could and no one but me would notice, so I really thank you for this).

You stated you believed the world more universally recognizes this as Dokdo than other names. On what did you base this? Dokdo is essentially just as well known as Takeshima, the Japanese name. You surely saw the section that all other encyclopedias we could find refer to it as Liancourt Rocks. So do government entities. Newspapers generally say, "Dokdo in Korean, Liancourt Rocks in English," if they bother to mention the English name at all. You admit that Liancourt Rocks is more neutral than "picking sides," but would rather choose a less neutral name even though fewer than about 25% of the established users (over 100 votes) gave any valid vote for Dokdo.

You also said the vote had gone into the backlog, but on the RM page itself it says if a consensus isn't clear it should be relisted at the top by an admin (in other words, if there is even a chance of a consensus coming out of it). Why did you choose not to do this and give it another few days to develop? You seem that you felt it was conclusive that no consensus would develop, regardless of the fact that about 75% of the valid votes were for Liancourt Rocks. Only around 40% of the votes including the non-established editors (but not single purpose accounts) were for the side you chose. They moved the editors that had < 50 votes, but that's only because they were blatantly obvious. I assumed the admin would take the time to evaluate the remaining ones and disregard those with < 100, per custom. It seems very clear that a consensus was developing, and rather than accept or promote one from developing by moving the RM to the top, you simply aborted the work that was done.

I can't find any naming section that talks about physical control. Perhaps you could point me to it? I guess the places like West Bank are misnamed then, since there are English names used by the group that controls them.

I might add that you are the first administrator to hold this opinion on the Dokdo page. Since all administrators except you who looked at this poll enough to consider a position disagree with you, in deference to them, I might suggest you try something else rather than just close down the work that has been done. Perhaps relisting it (which is even suggested on the RM page itself for admins to do in cases like this) with your opinion and recusing yourself from closing it again. At this point I seriously doubt you have a political agenda, but this would let two separate admins evaluate this topic. It's very clear that far more than the normal number of users voted in this RM. Correspondingly, extra consideration should be given to closing it. —LactoseTI^T 02:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your response to Opp's page where you said, "it does not bring any recognition of Korean sovereignty over the rocks." Perhaps if you are well aware of Wikipedia's policies, you might realize this. However, most people aren't, and as the media is explicitly attributing the current name to have that meaning. I think there's even a link on the talk page to a major news article to this effect, if not it's in the archive. —LactoseTI^T 02:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the response, consideration, and fair-mindedness. I recognize this is a tough one (have a nice night). —LactoseTI^T 03:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Husond, I appreciate your efforts in the closing of this poll. I hate to bring this up (because it makes things more complicated), but some sockpuppets were confirmed in the following report:

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lions3639

Lions3639 appears to have also written an article in The Chosun Ilbo newspaper, soliciting for votes outside of Wikipedia.--Endroit 07:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and listed this issue at WP:ANI#Vote fraud at Talk:Dokdo, since none of these socks have been blocked yet.--Endroit 16:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Husond, you might want to check out the new report of additional canvassing/WP:MEAT#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets violations on a Korean-American portal which was found to occur on 5/22, nearer the beginning of the poll. The link and some other comments are on the current article talk page which might be worth perusing (you'll have to sift through a little, but it's not very long so you might try skimming through them quickly). In summary, even after gross abuse of canvassing and (confirmed) sockpuppetry, the people supporting Dokdo are still basically in the superminority. This is after a previously controversial poll for the move (a year ago) that due to irregularities suggested that less than normal percentage-wise would be needed to move it back. Considering the wide-scale nature of the abuse, it might be worth going with the group of users forming the much larger consensus group at this time rather than rewarding large scale attempts to disrupt the consensus building process. It seems clear that at this point, there is no consensus for the article to remain at the current name. Just my thoughts. --Cheers, Komdori 15:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you reconsider your 62.5% (nobody agreed at that, Endroit brought that up in discussion long time ago) turn for Liancourt Rocks because I found 3 invalid votes for Liancourt Rocks. (Wikimachine 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Could you discuss the warrants behind your decision & why should it be unlikely that the article would be moved back especially when it was moved that easily to Liancourt Rocks on the basis that most of Korean editors here are meat puppets? I thought you already cleared them out. I just don't want "we admins don't do it that way" or some bureacratic explanation. Let's go one on one. Or I'll test the consensus behind the new title because I seriously think that all this has been tacitly arranged. (Wikimachine 19:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Then tell me about the meat puppetry. How many of the valid voters do you think are meat puppets? Also, I seriously doubt that there is any realism in your scenario for meat puppetry and that Korean portal post. The valid voters were already in Wikipedia for a while, and if they were indeed meat puppets they would have voted at Dokdo despite the portal post. (Wikimachine 19:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

If you're not willing to reserve time to explain this incomprehensible deal, do you know somebody else who can? (Wikimachine 20:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Husond, as you asked, I'm trying to provide a data challenging your theory of meat puppetry. However, Philip Baird Shearer is reverting my edits, saying that I should wait 6 months. What do you think about this? I'd like for you to take an affirmative action against his revert war. (Wikimachine 23:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The admin Philip is just trying to stop an endless nitpicking where you detail your personal opinion and edit count of every editor who contributed to the poll. If you want to go into extreme data analysis mode again, do it in your userspace and link it. It's only been reverted since the RM was archived, and you are starting to clutter up the talk page with an endless data analysis rather than simple evidence that would disrupt further progress on the article. In any case, he clarified his position, you evidently didn't read what was on the talk page. Your new work was always there. He suggested you just move on, and said he'd revert it if you brought large chunks from the archive. —LactoseTI^T 23:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But he archived it, and made it "old" himself. But the work is new. I began on it today, and yes it's going to be heavy in load, but so what? I see no harm in that. I see no benefit in keeping the talk page small and clean when it's going to build up anyways. I want to present this data right now. And my work is not there. (Wikimachine 00:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with Wikimachine here. Talk pages should not be archived until reasonable time has past since the comments were posted and reviewed by other users.--Húsönd 01:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor gave you an award here in which they made some pretty uncivil assertions against groups of people. i went ahead and reverted it, however you are welcome to replace it should you feel it was appropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]