Husond

Welcome to my talk page! Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.

Start a new talk topic!

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

---

Archives Húsönd creates an archive for every 50 messages

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dragon Skin body armor

Having rejected the request for protection on the article (in favor of suggesting warnings), would you be so kind as to intervene or point the page towards intervention before it becomes worse? Thanks. Darker Dreams 19:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that I also lack expertise in the subject area. Also, the anon poster has attempted to engage in talk, however their approach is hostile. The registered user appears to have no interest in talking and recently deleted a series of warnings off their own Talk due to PoV edits to other pages. I don't really want to jump into a fight I'm completely unprepared for, and don't know how to get a qualified and neutral position represented. Darker Dreams 19:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The primaries of the situation are 24.118.89.238 and Matts31415.

• Matts is pretty clearly pro-Pinnacle Armor, having made edits to several pages including Bulletproof vest, Vehicle armour, and Armour which consisted largely of Pinnacle information, links to other Pinnacle wikipedia articles, and external links. For this he was previously warned by Jmax- items which Matts has removed from his talk page.
• 24.118.89.238 appears to have a longer history of more varied edits, though seems to be consistantly a one-note person on this issue. Nearly every edit they have done to the actual page has the tag (revert: read discussion page, what Matts31415 (aka Pinnacle) is doing is tantamount to vandalism).

• both individuals have used talk, though Matts only once (2 edits) with a vitrolic reply to being accused of pro-Pinnacle vandalism. 24.118.89.238 has continued to use talk, mostly to continue attacking Matts as the pair revert and counter revert.
• others have weighed in, but it appears their attempts have been overrun by the revisions and reverts of these two extremes.

Darker Dreams 22:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say one or the other is soley disruptive, or the cause of disruption. but neither seems interested in working productivly (or civilly) with the other or anyone who seems to bow to the other's PoV, so both together are creating a disruption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darker Dreams (talk • contribs) 02:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

List of Ukrainian Americans

Hi. Why are you reverting the changes by the anon user? Please give a reason when you do that, especially repeatedly. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 02:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. Well, it happened to me too when the user first complained. We just have to be careful about checking, I guess. Xiner (talk, email) 03:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

re Tracy, California

No problem, and thanks for your help. Sometimes I let them have their fun and then go back an hour later and fix it. I'm not an admin, so it's easy for me. Cheers. Paxsimius 04:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting vandalism done to my Editor Review. Irony: When a vandal comes back to insult a person they have never met about having no life three and a half hours after their edit was removed. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 05:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD stupid coincidences

Apparently we think alike on recent AfD nominations. What a coincidence that we ended up submitting such similar nominations one right after another! Heimstern Läufer 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

History of Pakistan protection

Thank you very much for protecting the page. But before you protected the page, User:Dangerous-Boy re-edited the article to include his POV [1]. Would you please be kind to revert it to my edits, or revert it to the last time the protection was lifted. Thank you once again. Unre4LITY 23:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

AIV?

Hi Husond, I have a question about the AIV. As a non-admin, am I allowed to be bold and remove users/IPs who have not received the proper warnings/final warning? Just asking to be on the safe side. Arjun 03:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know :-). I usually do that when there is a backlog, in fact it is on my watchlist. This will sound weird but sometimes I take a break from editing and watch how admins go about there work and see how situations of all kinds are handled. Arjun 03:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, you just caught me when I was going offline :) I feel honored that you feel that way about me. Also I feel special to have such an award! Cheers and after listening to your advice about working on portals, I took it to heart. Portal:Hinduism is now a candidate for featured portal (amazing how things work out). Cheers and thanks again! Arjun 04:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me why you have deleted my entry - third time?

Hi Husond,

Just wondering why after all the work I seem to be putting in to this article on film-maker Matt Norman that it is continually deleted? To be honest the typing up of this is killing me. It's been deleted without any real notice three times. Even though Wikipedia has clear need for this entry? Please view how many links back to this entry and for a realistic purpose being a HISTORY event. I actually feel that Wikipedia is not really that interested in History? Is this the case.? If it is a biography then why is there literally hundreds of others on Wikipedia with biography's??? It seems to be being targeted? Can you please tell me why that is so.

I have contacted Matt Norman the film-maker as I got the information from him. I have also spoken to him about the deletion of this article and he has said you can contact him direct on [email protected] in relation to this matter.

Can you please tell me why exactly is it continually being deleted when all this work has gone into the article. Please also tell me how exactly you believe it should be written so that it doesn't get deleted? Please?

Thanks in advance

Filmnews2007 08:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A little help?

Hi Husond! I've noticed you're a friend of Arjun's, and you seem like a nice guy (or gal). I was wondering if you could help me with Joe's Stone Crabs, an article I moved (from Joe's Stone Crab) only to find out that the original name was correct. I tried to move it back, but couldn't because of the redirect that was formed. I then pasted the contents of the article onto the redirect page, so there are now two identical articles. The only differance is that the one with the singular name has the edit history wrong (it says I created the article, which I didn't). I was wondering if you could delete that version, so I can move the one with the real edit history back. Your help would be appreciated; thanks! | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 17:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The version that needs deleting is this one. I'll fix the links and the other problems after this is done. Thanks for helping. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 20:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I've moved the page back, and I'll fix the article as you told me to sometime in the very near future... Thanks again! | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 21:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make a note of that... ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 21:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection of X Japan article

Hi, following the full protection of the article (as opposed to the requested semi-protection), I would like to ask two questions:

• Was there any misbehavior on my part?, considering that my reverts where merely made to counter the re-insertion of unsourced information and well within 3RR limits?
• How to proceed from here, would putting in for a third opinion at WP:3O be an option?

Regards - Cyrus XIII 22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. No, I didn't see any misbehavior. I could also not certify that any user had violated the WP:3RR. The two users you were reverting (Darkcat21 and 62.57.22.131) might have violated it actually, but only if proved that they're the same person through a checkuser. I don't think that a checkuser is currently necessary though as there's not much of a sockpuppet abuse anyway. A WP:3O or WP:RFC may prove useful to attract more input into this dispute so that a consensus about the disputed content may be established and the article be unprotected. Regards,--Húsönd 22:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am currently writing up something for the respective talk page, along with a summary for WP:30. In the meantime, the other editor involved has admitted to be behind those IP-based edits in a related content dispute. I am not quite sure whether to take any further action regarding this now obvious 3RR violation, but would you consider exerting your right per WP:3RR#Enforcement to revert the protected article to the last revision from before the edit war? Regards - Cyrus XIII 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask you to provide a diff where the registered user claims he/she's the same person as the unregistered user in order to block him/her for 3RR. However, even if proven, the transgression occurred too many hours ago and it's really not necessary to do that now. I have a strict policy for maintaining neutrality upon protecting articles so I once again must decline your request. But in order to revert the article to your last version while protected you may: 1)create a straw poll on the talk page of the article asking users to either endorse your last version or Darkcat21's (if there's consensus about endorsing yours, then I shall revert to your version); or 2)place a request on WP:RPP in the section Current requests for significant edits to a protected page and ask the locked version of the article to be changed to your last (if you do this please state the disruption caused by the other user so that another administrator will understand your motive).

I hope this helps. Regards,--Húsönd 00:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite so, thanks a lot. - Cyrus XIII 00:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Campeonato Brasileiro

Hi Husond. Glad to have some admnistrator taking action against the edit war, though would prefer you freeze the version to the one that has been agreed by consensus by all the others execpt this Ragnarok. Please know that I had already asked Natl1 who is a patroller to have a look and it has been clear to him that it was ragnarokś attitude who seems eveidently close to vandalism. So I would please ask you to freeze the page on the version that has been discussed and consensed, as otherwise you are beneffiting the infractor. Just take a look at the discussion and the history of the revertings, I think it speaks for itself 21JuL74 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Another point: talk with Natl1 as he has warned already many time s Ragnarok for his "vandalism". We have been very patient with him as he is war-reverting since weeks agains other cointributors and actually we asked for mediation (as despite his bad manners I judged he wasn a vandal but actually a dispute content). what evidently he did not. He even made a edit war on his talk page with Natl1, calling him a troll ! And sorry, hes plainly deforming everything, saying that I've many times blanked his sources (not true, only blanked today first time his writings in Portuguese on the english wiki, actually maintained " source links"). 21JuL74 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry again, just have seen your notice om my talk page. Well, i'm surprise you have not seen any consensus on this page, could I ask you to read it again ? Only Ragnarok is disturbing and even Flamengo fans (Carioca) have agreed to that. In the section "overcomeing partiality", it was discussed that the issue is not specific to 87 but rather whether to take official list or all the lists of champions. This would encompass all champions since the 50s. So everybody sticked to the offficial CBF list, which is sourced. Bottom line, so have to sole this issue and reopen the discussion ? It's disheartening that you are protecting the "troll" one when actually I coould have done it before and tried to mediate instead (contact Natl1 for that). You are benefitting the agressive one (and I'm being kind) 21JuL74 23:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: can check Mediation Cabal/2006-12-30 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A. MEdiation taken by Natl1 proved good for just one week. Ragnarok actually has been reverting the warnings from Natl1 on his talk page (and I didn ask Natl to take sides...)!. And as for oither users, look at history, there have many ncontributors and only this one trolling ( awell actually 2, Raça rubro-negra which could be the same one, and definitely parrtial as this is the name of the ultras of Flaengo...). None have provided any argument or official source. 21JuL74

Thanks for your proposal of endorsement by the editors, i think it's fair. Actually you could check there is already one endorsement posted, by Carioca, which btw is a Flamengo fan but very reasonable and who contributed a lot on pages about soccer. 21JuL74 00:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Husond, I know it's still early to ask any decision, but I just would like to express my frustration with wiki "management" , especially those "following the rules". This is the story of a page that took a few months to be established, on a well-known sensible subject (soccer), which proved successful. Than a few months later enters a single individual that starts reverting systematically, being reverted patiently by others. No one claimed officially for vandalism despite some intimidation, preferring to follow the wiki advices as content disputes. These interventions by the individual never being based on any discussion, just plain reverts barely commented out. Now after weeks of near-vandalism we ask for mediation, the individual reverts the mediators warnings (who actually "took side" for us without we actually asking for it, as the evidence of his attitude), then finally under pressure posts some bogus or weak "sources" which actually only illustrate arguments already accepted by everyone and irrelevant to the discussion, then ignores our sources , discusses in portuuguese, poses as a victim (verifiability, previously npov claims) AND immediately claims for protection (and vandalism by me). on his first "day" of discussion. Finally after your intervention he doesn seem to understand your poll request as he has again intervened (look at he discussion page). I think that beyond your poll (which so far is early but favours my point) there is plenty of evidence that this individual is an uncontrollable free electron. So again it's frustrating that we have to take so much time to judge such a simple case, with so much evidence, so much subjective action and arguments, and irrespect of other arguments and sources. Menawhile the page is blocked on a version that he even didn't dare to update, we were on a 2007 edition while he continued to revert unicivilly to a 2006 version originally modified months ago. Incredible how one single individual can damage a patiently build consensus, on rational argumentation. Look that the main consensus point was not denying his team's championship as he claims, but that if that would be done than the whole list would have to be changed as for consistency all championships before 1970 had to be considered. Everybody given this consistency requirement preferred to maintain thus the official line as this would discredit the page. As he has not read this or does not have the english proficiency to discuss it, he is focusing on a non-issue. So I´m not against mentioning the 87 issue as I posted there already, but then we will have to list all the winners of Rio Sao Paulo, Taça de Prata etc... In this case better to delete the page as it will be an unreliable mish mash.21JuL74

Deletion of ProductWiki article

I recently discovered the ProductWiki article was deleted from Wikipedia. I read the debate that lead to the deletion, and noticed that you finalized the process.

I feel that the comments in the debate were unfair and inaccurate. I am a co-founder of ProductWiki, and we are not a spam wiki, nor new, nor an insignificant wiki. We have been growing for over 1 year, and have 13,000 products contributed by our community of almost 2,000 members. We provide a voice for the consumer, and have chosen the wiki format as the best medium.

As per the WP:WEB criteria, we meet criteria #1. We have been sourced multiple times including Popular Science magazine (both print and online), the Kitchener Record, and in Ben McConnell's latest book Citizen Marketers.

I would like to initiate a deletion review, but am not sure where to begin. Any help would be appreciated.

-- Ekkalvia 00:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Roundabouts/Rotaries

File:SpinningA.gif

A AAAA AA AAA AA AAA AA AAAAAAAAA!

Great story, unfortunately I have friends that would voluntarily exit a fast moving vehicle, just to see what happens. Even if their driving. Maybe I can trap them with centrifugal force?

In Australian at least 50% of the populous owns a Ute and at least 50% of the populous lacks any regard to his or/her personal safety and respect for the road rules and other drives, it's not uncommon to see someone drive straight though the middle of a roundabout. When there happens to be and ornamental fountain in the center, it's better than scripted comedy.

I like your userpage Husond, what is the inspiration? Mine is actually a userbox gone wrong. It expanded in my test site, and I though it looked better so I just tweaked it slightly and that's a userpage. I threw all my crap in my FAQ section.

Do the roaches actually hiss? You could stencil numbers on the back of them and hold crooked races. VP is so damed buggy I have to use Lupin's. Oh! The indignity! Cheers, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a Roundabouts/Rotaries Wikiproject yet? We could start one. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Best image ever!

Oh, that test site. Whenever I need a template I just slap some stuff together from my test site and it's like a lottery. Usually three lemons come up. You were a judge in the last userpage design contest. I was an assistant coordinator in the Esperanza Collaboration of the month, I think. Oh, ho! When I go into my room I put on goggles for no real reason and people run. Have you seen these? I've been showing these to everyone (four or five people).

My new favorite article:

• Is this one.

This article was created on St. Valentine's Day.

My new favorite Categories:

• Category: Athletes who have maliciously stepped on other athletes during competition
• Category: Flora and Fiona of Azerbaijan (Fiona?)
• Category: Towns with Zombie Problems
• Category: Wikipedians who insist on having the word lobster in every article

And now for some reason, everytime I'm on your page, I'll leave you a great image.

Cheers, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 00:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you for your kind words! While sometimes it feels like building sandcastles before the tide, it's nice to know my efforts do not go un-noticed - or unappreciated. --Haemo 02:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of ProductWiki. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ekkalvia 15:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Matt Norman. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hi Husond,

I received your post back to me about taking my concern for the deletion of my article to the deletion review. I would like you to be a part of that review. Thanks again in advance and thank you for helping me go through the right channels. Filmnews2007 06:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Continuation War... again

Since User:Nietjärvi was confirmed to be yet another sock of Kven/Art Dominique and the four of us (Petri Krohn, Whiskey, me & Roobit) are now unlikely to be socks of each other, I suggest degrading the protection back to "semi-" status, for as long as Kven doesn't whip up another semiprotection-piercing sockpuppet. --Illythr 13:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected--Húsönd 18:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

is this better?

Okay, I finally got around to working on the stub. Does it look better now? | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 14:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help! I couldn't have done it without you. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 15:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A personal request

As an uninvolved administrator in this matter, could you please look into Miltopia's complaint about pschemp's use of admin tools as elaborated at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Miltopia_Gaming_the_system.3F? It appears on the surface to be a content dispute where pschemp is using their admin tools to force their "side" of the issue. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

New vandalism from User_talk:204.108.96.18

Hello Husond. On 19 January, you issued a 48-hour block to this anon. On 22 January he resumed his activities, four out of six changes being vandalism, and continued with the blanking of the warnings on his Talk page. Do you feel that a further block would be appropriate? EdJohnston 19:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, my friend. We have some problems with our "favourite user" regarding diacritics (as always). Could you look at Talk:Marek Špilár? Thank you. :) - Darwinek 20:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Similar problem here Talk:As-Salif. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Darwinek has blocked himself because of personal attacks against Gene, but I think he was too strict on himself. May you unblock him ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, maybe he feels he must do it. Happy editing. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA! It succeeded, and I now have The Tools – which I'm planning to use as wisely as I possibly can. I hope I will be worth your confidence. Thanks again! :-) –mysid☎ 20:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hey Husond, good job on blocking that Constitutional amendment vandal. Just wanted to let you know that IE is not that bad man, I tried both Firefox and IE, and IE honestly starts up and runs faster. I never understand what Firefox users have against IE. I almost switched to Firefox, but I realized that IE7 basically provides the same features, plus it's not open source (which I like). Why do you like Firefox so much? --Nevhood 02:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll give it a try... and I'll let you know what I think about it. --Nevhood 02:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Small world

You just beat me to the revert...:) Cheers! Arjun 02:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Twice!!! This was after a week when I had 0! Arjun 02:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that is funny, keep up the great work! Arjun 02:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Pointless request for References

Why is there a request for references on the 2006 Norwegian Football Cup Final page?

Please could you reply to my user page, Cheers!!

Dreamweaverjack 02:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely the above page doesn't require to have any references as it only has the match statistics and not any personal opinions?

Dreamweaverjack 02:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The trivia section only contains statistical information about the competion history, as well as some data about the players and clubs who are involved in the cup final itself!!

If the word "trivia" was changed to "Cup facts" would that be allowed under wikipedia rules?

Dreamweaverjack 03:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! Dreamweaverjack 03:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

D.B RfA

А пиг, ин а цаге, он антибиотицс!

Daniel.Bryant is finally going for RfA. It took four co-nom's though. Husond, can I co-nom and still vote? Or does that count? My fan is broken, what do you think is wrong with it? Мы бике кеепс макинг тхис цлицклы, цлацкы ноисе, wхат до ёу тхинкн тхе троубле ис тхере? Cheers, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 07:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Dan you can still co-nom. I got support 100. It took me 40 minutes. But I got it. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 00:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

101! 101? Ah, well. It's still a vote ain't it? I can't remember the last time we were both online Husond. Out of interest, what time is it in Portugal? Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 00:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Where I am it's 11:49 AM. I just had breakfast. Cheese tortillas. Goood . You should get some sleep or something. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 00:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Don't be coming to my talk page with nonsense. If you have something specific to complain about, point out what it is, and how you think it is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Gene Nygaard 16:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Please don't go down Gene's spiral of hostilities

Sorry. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick rv on my userpage. My fanclub has been dormant for a while. But they've become active again in the last 2 days :) . Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to express my thanks for protecting 4Kids Entertainment. It's been the subject of continual vandalism, and it's nice to see that people are looking out for it.--Haemo 00:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)