User talk:Husond/Archive 25

This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Halverson is being vandalized by non-logged in editors (IP addresses). Can it be protected so those that wish to add / change / edit it can not do so anonymously? Halverson is controversial right now, and I think protecting the page will keep things on the up-and-up.

Declined Sorry, but the current level of disruption is too low and does not justify protection for this article. Húsönd 13:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry only now I'm able to answer your request of 19:56, 21 August 2007. I've been several months away from wikis. The map I did for the Southwest Alentejo and Vicentine Coast Natural Park was made over a map of the park and surroudind areas. I coloured differently the area of the park and outside it (removing details), and made the coastline stronger. Then, I added towns and names. I'm not thinking about making new maps in the foreseeable future. I'm sorry. Escrevi em inglês por estarmos na Wikipédia inglesa. Um abraço. Francisco (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I'd like you to give your opinion here about the request move:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vladimir_Gotovac#Requested_move --Anto (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

You blocked me on the Gulf of Piran article. I will explain why I am changing the unsourced parts of the article. I don't know if you've heard, but the Gulf of Piran is a sensitive topic between Croatians and Slovenians. The matter will probably go to arbitration. As such I belive it is best to keep the article based on solid and uncontested facts. Ante Perkovic has now "found" sources. Please go and revise them. Ou, they're in Croatian. Even if translated to English it's a biased oppinon. I'm not saying it isn't true. But when new countries are formed there is a lot of gossip and unconfirmed rumors. Just by writing them does not make them true. So what I would like is to have the Gulf of Piran article purged of such stated "facts". This thing can just blow into an editing war in which one side lists their country's sources and the other their's. If they find an outside source, that's fine with me. But rest asured that both sides have extremist's organizations and individuals who will put just about anything as a source. The constant markup of unsourced "facts" is also a bit strange. If someone put info on Hitlers biography that he was a great person, should that info stay for some time with the sign that the info has no source? You see what I mean? If you're up for the job please, research the materials, try to find "outside" sources and find out what it's really all about. But simply protecting info from dubious sources or no source at all is a bit harsh. I had a sourcing problem with mr. Ante Perkovic before. I'm not saying that it isn't true!, but the source has to be valid, accepted by both sides. The thing in question was a pdf from one of Croatian magazines. Slovenian magazines have similar articles, hell we even have a polititian who says that all of Istria is Slovenian! And he has "sources" too prove that. I belive that those kind of disscussions only bring less understanding. So please: check the Gulf of Piran for sources both sides agree on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.143.154 (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

I would certainly value your advice regardless, and will try to give you some from time to time as well! I liked the idea too, I think it might help in preventing some of the burnouts/flameouts we've seen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is this better? 79.3.240.55 (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the star! Your reasoning was quite hilarious (the distraction part :)). Cheers, Razorflame 01:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually edited it for a reason this time. there's nothing wrong with what i did this time right?

JasonDaniel123 02:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:69.29.70.177 is deleting my comments on a talk page.

• 15:26
• 15:49

I asked him why he deleted my comment and he just deleted that too. 15:48

This is his page. Will you please sort him out and tell him not to delete my comment and edits in the future? Thankyou.

Are you still up for more collaboration? I am, if you are. Regards, Rudget (Help?) 16:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment. I don't want this incident with Beamathan to be repeated, but I feel as administrators we have a duty to root out those causing disruption under the various pages listed under ArbCom, and make sure we can either 'reform' them or simply remove them before they can cause any more damage. We've worked on other occasions, I think, aside from topic bans, so I still do want to work with you further. I hope this makes sense. Rudget (Help?) 19:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at

]

Barnstar!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For the humor you used on my barnstar, I hereby award you this barnstar! Razorflame 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. You do have a good sense of humor. Somewhere, a mime is being sacrificed in your honor. Yay! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...that's cause for a barnstar in and of itself. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks guys. :-) Dang, I was aiming for a kitten sacrifice. Húsönd 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please ban this person, here is what he wrote, "Kosova2008 is a albanian you cant expect them to value children or human live, they love stealing other land and destroying the people ancient Monuments. What you expect from uncivilized animal, I also should of been more clear and said Western Supported Terrorism.He also on several List just not Western ones since they arm and supported hi. But Wiki is A Propaganda website ran by people who can bend truth to feet there needs like him" (75.118.148.170 (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)). --Kosova2008 (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't quite sure where to go with this. An open discussion of Talk:Captain America#Intelligence has been met with gross incivility by User:ThuranX despite warnings. I was wondering what could be my next recourse, to bring the discussion back to civility. Any help or direction would be appreciated. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

There has been no resolve, I have been away from wiki for a while, as well, and been apprehensive to continue the discussion with the incivility as it was. Any intervention or direction would be much appreciated. Thank you for your attention to this issue. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I can't find any recent instances of incivility there. Please provide diffs with evidence of recent behavior you find uncivil. Húsönd 17:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasted from the conversation:

This is what I thought to be particularly incivil. Again, thank for you attention. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, ThuranX was uncivil in his last comment. However, that was more than a week ago. On Wikipedia we don't "punish" editors, we only apply any measures to halt any persistent disruption when it's occurring at present time. If ThuranX continues to be uncivil to you, please remind him that he is obliged to respect

WP:CIVIL. If he continues to be uncivil after your reminder, then it would be adequate to report his continued misbehavior to an admin. Otherwise, no admin action is in order. Húsönd 22:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I had notified you immediately seeking resovle. I understand the time elapse however this was addressed almost immediately. I will keep this in mind with further discussion. Thank you for your help. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Although there has been a change in blantant incivility in discussion, there continues to be gross incivilty in judgemental tone in the edit summaries with the most recent listing "you just don't get it," listed, - 19:54, 15 June 2008, again despite con't reminders of civilty. If you could help to resolve this, as you have been involved throughout the duration of the problem, rather than a new administrator, it would be appreciated. Again, thank you for your atttention to this matter, it is greatly appreciated. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

"you just don't get it" is certainly not the nicest edit summary, but I don't think it can be considered deliberate incivility. At this moment, no admin action is in order. You may of course report further behavior you consider uncivil or inappropriate. But it will take much more than this kind of edit summaries for drastic measures to be necessary. Regards, Húsönd 21:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(redent) You were correct that the previous statement was marginal at best; however, the comment for discussion entry for Talk:Captain America#Intelligence under "Intelligence revisited" stated "sick and tired of this shit." User went on to write:

-

Thank you for being so patient with me as we work through this, and you continued diligence.66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

When was this? When reporting misconduct, please use diffs. Regards, Húsönd 00:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. For what it's worth, there seems to be dispute on whether I am "ignoring consensus." However, I believe, I have been providing additional sources, to re-explore consensus strictly in a discussion, which continues to have such reactive responses. This most recent response was yesterday. My continued thanks and regards. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I have reminded ThuranX to be civil and avoid hostility. Húsönd 16:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and much appreciated. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I can't figure out what they are supposed to represent. Every theory I have come up with so far could explain a different two out of the three, but not all of them. Please help! :-( --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 07:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Husond, Sorry to bother you, but some problem editors are attempting to change the name of the Gandhi page from

• Nikkul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• Beamathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

are now talking about moving the page regardless of the discussion where the fabled consensus is eluding them.

I'm just frustrated that I have to waste time with these people (none of whom have any history of actually editing the Gandhi page and all of whom are either rude or facetious or both) until I am blue in the face, and finally, when in frustration I say something sarcastic, they immediately turn around (usually after a quick metamorphosis to a whimpering victim tone) and accuse me of not showing enough sensitivity to their fragile newbie nerves. Can the page be protected against arbitrary moves? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:That would be a bit precipitous since the article has not been moved. If it is moved, I think there is sufficient consensus to move it back and then protect the page. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 14:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying! No, the storm has passed. There was no consensus for change to "Mahatma Gandhi," actually not even a majority. The RM and its discussion was closed and has been archived. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Husond, just letting you know that no move was ever threatened without consensus, and fowler seems to be trying to take advantage of you and your feelings towards me. If there's anything you'd vouch for regarding me, it would be following consensus. I'm getting up evidence for my cause now, don't let fowler play you for a fool. Beam 23:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there was a RM closed by an admin then I guess the dispute is settled for the moment. Húsönd 23:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just didn't want you dragged into something, that's all. Beam 23:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

Please, I need your help. I am pretty sure that Polscience is trolling again on Europe and it's very sad to see how a user with good faith user: MorganaFiolett is investing his energy trying to have a fair discussion. It's just three days after 12 socks of Polscience have been identified and blocked. Two of those puppets were trying hard to disrupt, once again, the European country list. Just one day later user: Coniatis pops up with edits like this one on the Europe talk page, or this one on my talk page, where he complains that I, as the responsible editor, do not reply to him within one day. Normally, Coniatis should not have any relation with me. So why would he act immediately this way?
As you can see from the first link, I have already posted a request on Allison's talk page in the same section where the other socks were confirmed. However, I did not get a reaction at all. Does that mean my suspicion is wrong or was there simply no action yet. Since I am very sure that Coniatis is polscience, I am wondering whether I should put this on the talk page of Europe or MorganaFiolett in order to avoid that sincere editors waste their time on this troll. What is your advice? Can you initiate a chec on Coniatis? Tomeasy_talk 17:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am probably quite early with this remark, but here's what I think: Polscience resurrected once again this morning. After creating his account as user: Geographyfanatic, he made a few constructive edits on Europe to finally put this on the talk page. If it is not too complicated to check this user please do, before editors with good faith spoil their efforts. My apologies, if my suspicion is wrong. Tomeasy_talk 07:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This will be a very delicate issue. I am personally involved and you should not assume me as objective in this case. Any decision should not be based upon my subjective reasoning, because I would personally profit from a ban. user: Geographyfanatic and I are currently involved on opposing fronts in a mediation dispute on the List_of_countries_GDP_(nominal), basically on whether or not to include the EU. I am requesting a technical (objective) check on this users IP or however this is done to find out whether he is Polscience. I think he is.

I would like to put another disclaimer: After the above message, this user did lots of good work on Europe. I personally interacted a lot with them on matters there and they were co-operative. That's why I have not come back to this issue so far, giving the editor chance as long as an enrichment to the wikipedia is the case.

Unfortunately, this has changed drastically and we are all witnesses of very bad behavior and incivilities. I recognize the same grammar and style as in Polscience's posts: Shouting, bold faces, insults, accusations, and foremost the lack of understanding arguments from their opponents. The following is a masterpiece of his contributions. He proposes to delete the article all together, because it is very wrong in its major parts. The only thing that is wrong is the shown comparison. The user compares GDP in PPP values from the CIA to GDP nominal values of our article. The CIA states GDP nominals as will and they are in accordance. OK, this can happen, even though perhaps not after one week involvement in a discussion on GDP values. The striking point for me is the conclusions that he draws from the wrong data, spiced with (the following are citations): "shamelessly", "push forward their EU "plan"", "NOT EVEN ONCE, they did not even once look at the chart", "they do not care about making the article or wikipedia better. What an gang of Lobbyists ! ".

You might want to look through the remainder of mediation discussion to see that the cited incivilities are not exceptional. Tomeasy_talk 08:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2] The Kosovo president site says that Sierra Leone recognised. Please add to the list ;)

Hey Husond, I just fulfilled the EP request

here - I didn't see your note until after I had done it. The sources do seem to confirm though, and there seems to be a variety of editors that agree with the addition. Feel free to revert me (I've no expertise in the article content) if you feel more time/confirmation should pass. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Heh, no problem, thanks for doing it while I was away. :-) Anyway I'm a bit worried about kosovothanksyou.com still saying about Sierra Leone - "Status: Awaiting Confirmation". I will keep checking that, but for the moment the source provided seems valid for having the edit request approved. Regards, Húsönd 17:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Husond, Husond, for getting past our issues, and to promote good coopeartion and civility between us both, Beam has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Beam 18:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The move discussion at

]

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

Could you take a look at this post of our "dear friend" PMAnderson and his talking about "Fooland" and "Foolanders" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28use_English%29#GoodDay_or_the_Croatians

I think that this kind of rhetorics is not appropriate, especially for an administrator. --Anto (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Husond. I see that there is a mediation effort going on for the article title based on the RFC created by WJBScribe. Is this kosher? I thought that the RFC was not in order. Also, it seems that the bureaucrat at the mediation page has pre-expressed a preference for Myanmar. (Here [3].) --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 15:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you say it is in order, then it is and I'll post my opinion there! --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 17:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I wasn't expressing a preference, I was just explaining my interpretation of the arguments as they existed on the page at the time. The policy seems fairly unambiguous about naming issues that common usage is the most important indicator, and Myanmar is more common in the international community than Burma, apparently. I'm neutral, I don't care. Andre (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind and do the best I can to determine consensus for Atyndall in his informal mediation when he's ready for me (24 June). It's possible that there will not be a consensus. Andre (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noted the behavior when I first started editing, almost two years ago. It almost made me turn and head out of the project, but I'm stubborn. I wonder how many less stubborn, but well-intended, newbies he's driven away over the years? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get you to take a look at the stance I am taking on Wikipedia:Verifiability at This discussion page. I am not looking for you to necessarily get involved, However I would like a 2nd opinion on my stance regarding verifiabiity in this situation. If you would rather not, that is ok too I just want to make sure my judgement is not clouded here. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		What a Brilliant and Peaceful Idea Barnstar
		I, Chrislk02, award you this custom What a Brilliant and Peaceful Idea Barnstar for your analysis and proposed solutions to particlulary difficult and heated situation. Thanks again for your words of wisdom. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You state here that Mattjones17 (talk · contribs) didn't get a final warning. The user has been consistently blanking warnings and selected parts of discussions from their user page. Final warning was given here. See previous (also blanked) discussions in his talk page history. Can you please take another look? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this talk page is all about as I'm new to editing wiki but seems like Husond is being reckless here. For example I added very constructive info to the Progressive bag alliance article: namely that there are even better alternatives than reusable shoping bags. Transportable carts are not well known by the public but if they were better known we could get rid of the bag problem more easily. Transportable carts, which fit in vehicles, allow eliminating bags altogether while making the shopping process more efficient and environmentally friendly. This information could be the nail in the coffin of the plastic shopping bag industry. I believe Husond's revertion of my edit is heavily biased in favor of the plastic shopping bag industry because if the transportable cart secret is spread then the green movement will have a good rebuttal to the "they'll just use more paper bags" or "reusable bags are an inconvenience and often forgettable" arguments used by the plastic shopping bag industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.13.107 (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm all for plastic shopping bags, you discovered my secret. :-) Now seriously, you were reverted simply because your edits were what we call

spam. Thank you. Húsönd 00:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You should see me be very active all summer. I plan to do lots of vandal fighting, but I'm also going to diversify my work here. I would like to find time to tag articles for speedy deletion, and give my opinion in MFDs and AFDs daily. Also, I'm on ADD medication now, so I should be able to do research for articles. Lets hope that RL doesn't get in my way;-)--

SJP (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. This is Macedonian written in Latin, but based on Microsoft Word character-mapping rather than the actual Romanisation system, hence the "letters" { and ` etc. Luckily I have a program specifically for this :). As it's not English, do any of the usual restrictions apply for keeping deleted content on my page? I heard somewhere that users can get in trouble for having it in their userspace, and I'm off to bed soon... BalkanFever 12:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey how are you??

Hi Husond. Geographyfanatic has emailed me regarding his block. He's asking if a checkuser was done. Would you confirm to me that a checkuser was done so I can reassure him that the block is appropriate. If a checkuser has not been done, would you like me to request one, or will you do that? Regards SilkTork *^YES! 15:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SilkTork and thank you for contacting me. User:Polscience often send e-mails after his socks are blocked, saying that he's a newbie, never heard of Polscience, not being a sock, etc.. No checkuser was done for this one as it's an obvious sock (I usually block Polscience's socks at least twice a week). You may request a checkuser just to make sure, it might actually prove quite helpful if you do because it will probably reveal a dozen other socks. Or, you may contact checkuser User:Alison, she's already found hundreds of socks from this guy who just doesn't seem to give up. Regards, Húsönd 18:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison has done the check, and it's confirmed that the Geographyfanatic and Polscience accounts are connected. Thanks. SilkTork *^YES! 07:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you one. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got the reply. The plot to take over the world is now underway!

(note to possible conspiracy theorists: the preivous comment was a joke. This was not an actual plan to take over the world. Had an actual plan been instigated, you would have been provided with a largely false trail of breadcrumbs concerning a possible alien invasion by

Brittany scandal or a combination of the two in a soon-to-be blockbuster movie directed by yet another one of our agent provocateurs. Please continue about your business. These are not the droids you are looking for. There was no one on the grassy knoll. Ever. In the entirety of recorded history. UFO sightings are naught but hallucinations brought on by "an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato". Electronic vote tampering? You got us there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I knew that was not enough evidence, but did you test their IP addresses? Because I found that all confusing, trying to find users IP addresses, with that thing you showed me. I was wondering if you would test their IP addresses for me. Thanks

talk) 22:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The problem isn't the IP addresses. The problem was what was typed. Veracious Rey (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you now. Sorry for the confusion. I don't have much of a case to report them, however im still suspicious. Thanks anyway ;)

talk) 22:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

[8] If you look at that accounts contributions, you will see it is solely for reverting users contributions and personnel attacks . ;)

I know which user it is, its

talk) 21:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I was watching that match too, Croatia deserved to win. Turkey scored after the time was up. ;(

talk) 21:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh well thanks anyway. By the way Kosova2008 is an Kosovo-Albanian living in the US. Regards ;)

talk) 22:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

How is that vandalism mate? any player on the park can be outstanding. The word/s needed are more complete, all round or even box-to-box, as they can do everything. So how is this vandalism in the slightest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.114.86 (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot mate. It can be torture on here lol, both with the constant changing and things you have to do. I'm still getting there though as i'm still new, so will hopefully be able to avoid more confusion. Where can i go though to see if everybody that contributes doesn't mind if something is changed or what do i need to do? as i fully understand peoples frustrations. Thanks for any help. --90.203.114.86 (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help and the warm welcome mate, appreciate it. It's also nice to meet/talk to you as you sound like a nice person. As you have probably guessed, i'm not the shy type just sometimes clueless lol, so won't hesitate to ask for any help. Thanks again. --90.203.114.86 (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again mate, you have been very helpful. I've been trying to create an account but it said try again, so i'm about to now. Cheers. --90.203.114.86 (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does not depict the precise image who disputes Kosovo's status.

I proposed the following order:

1) Montenegro conducts a delimitation of the border with Kosovo: we're introducing Kosovo (as part of Serbia, but introduce in the beginning)

2) Montenegro recognizes Kosovo: we mention it normally along the other three countries, but note its disputed status (by Serbia)

3) Kosovo internationally recognized: normally mentioned along the other countries, with a footnote saying it's claimed by Serbia

4) Serbia recognizes independence: normal

For instance, I support(ed) introducing Kosovo to the Republic of Macedonia intro, because it is conducting a delimitation (which means that it indeed border Kosovo and not Serbia, also factually recognizing independence - Montenegro conducted no such thing and it "really does" [whatever that meant] border Serbia at Kosovo). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but then we'll have tons and tons of users and complaints who keep saying that it is POV, because it depicts the views of a minority of the international community, undermining the majority.

It's no CRYSTAL, it's just a plan when/if to introduce the reference.

Cheers, friend. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in but I'm a stalker. Anyway, you of course would mention that Serbia claims Kosovo, but you'd have to mention more than just Serbia when discussing countries that dispute Kosovo's independence, it's not just Serbia itself and by itself or it would be a Cyprus like situation. Beam 03:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting a page with a PROD is vandalism? 67.162.108.96 (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I know you're looking out for vandalism, but sometimes jumping to conclusions too quickly leads to misunderstandings.  :) 67.162.108.96 (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Husond

I saw you on the administrators list page and I decided to ask you for help as you seem to be experienced on wikipedia. I recently spotted some possible sockpuppet activity on wikipedia page about some Biff Rose. I dont know how to check whether the suspected accounts are related or not, could you help me out?

I think

user:Aintnojoy

user:Riverridge

user:Getdowntoo

user:Emptywordy

user:Makealitter

user:Claycourtclay

user:Justineheninfan

are related. The reason is that they are all new accounts with only one or two edits on the same page - Biff Rose - and after one practically erases whatever it does not like, and after it will get reverted by someone, another account appears to "help" and do the same thing again. If you will go to Biff Rose page history you will see a clear pattern. I do not know what to do, I cant check or block or anything at all. One of them even left a message on my talk page and using some vague language "explained" why he was reverting and omitting half of the article. Soon after that I received an e-mail full of profanity and user:Emptywordy called me a filthy Jew - I have no idea why, I'm not jewish or anything - This is getting annoying. please could you help me out ? --Carbott (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! This is kinda weird and I do not now how to judge this. Honestly, I have no idea what's going on with respect to the above post, but I think I should anyway give you (Hushond) a comment, because of the account that made the post. Carbott was created just after you had blocked GeoFanatic some days ago. These were his first three edits: [14][15][16]

As you can imagine from this content, they ignited a certain suspicion in me. Since nothing worth mentioning happened afterwards I did not care. After all, I have better things to do then tracking one specific user down again and again. However, seeing this account contacting you because of a sock puppet report seemed very strange to me. Also I find it strange that a new user points on WP policies in his third edit and that coincidentally he contacts you. Therefore my notice. Tomeasy_talk 23:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I appreciate every time to identify these sock puppets, I am getting annoyed by this game. I mean, every time we have to treat a new account with good faith and that's how I want it to be. I am not willing to run around with the mindset of chasing one specific user. I feel abused, because he likes to disrupt especially those discussions that I am involved in. Also I am afraid that I become a little bit paranoid and might suspect somebody incorrectly, just because he is new and participates in one of my discussions with an argumentation that seems unlogical to me. honestly, those three conditions in combination are already enough for me to have bell on. And I do not lie this. Well bottom line, do you have an idea on what to do? And I am not asking for stricter rules or blocking some IPs that Polscience might be using for all his actions. I would just like to enjoy my editing without this hide and seek. Perhaps there are other ways to avoid this irritation. Tomeasy_talk 23:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing should work now. I will read it tomorrow. Thanks. Tomeasy_talk 00:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you know that the existing page is right?. You even dont know where Turkey is. Please be neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.104.31.251 (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey's in the sandwich I'll have for lunch. You added personal commentary to the article, which is not allowed. You should read

WP:CIVIL. Húsönd 13:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Turkey Sandwiches? That's racist. :( Beam 13:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now you're racist AND sexist. :| Beam 14:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol I definitely didn't see that coming, now I'm scared. Beam 15:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's one big sandwich! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At rollback, it was suggested that I wish to have this ability, I need to ask an admin for it. (Ahem) I seekest the ability of Rollback. And no, I do not know the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow, be it African or European. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will use the ability responsibly. No weekend

cacking sex-crazed campers at Crystal Lake, I promise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd appreciate your help, if you need a further synopsis of the arguments and how they stand currently please, PLEASE, let me know. Thanks. Beam 19:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved from Mohandas Gandhi to its current name without going through the proper channels. And that user who attacked me most... it's your friend Fowler. I went to his talk page with my concerns, after I did such, he came to your talk page and continued to insult and attack me! Sigh... I wish you weren't busy, but it was moved to its current name without the proper course taken. And even when it's moved back to Mohandas Gandhi... that's still not right! It's a little frustrating to have policy and common sense on my side and having others attack me and refuse to debate... probably because I'm in the right and their personal preference is stopping them. Beam 21:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's appreciated. Beam 21:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is my most recent and through attempt at getting consensus for the name change. It's being show down with no reasoning. Or very poor and nonsensical reasoning like "Gandhi wouldn't want the article named that way." I'm not even joking.

"I am moving this article to Mohandas Gandhi, leaving redirects to it from Gandhi and Mahatma Gandhi. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)All double redirects have been fixed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)"

That's the move. It was a unilateral move. Sometime after that the middle name was added. And as far as Fowler goes, I wasn't contacting you to take any measure against him. He has stopped being an asshole to me after I repeatedly told him to stop. The last thing he did was contact you and characterize me as a newb, and one use account among other things. Which, honestly, was as pleasant as he got when it came to me, lol. Beam 23:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, honestly that's the best way to describe what was happening. I don't think it's uncivil to call a

I thought it would be simple enough to provide policy, than show that Mahatma Gandhi is the common name, then have everyone verify that evidence and change the name. But Fowler wont' let it happen, among other people. I tried reasoning, and eventually after discussion RegentPark(sp), a former opposer, agreed that my argument was valid. But others won't budge, I think it's an