Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roadcreature (talk | contribs) at 01:02, 14 December 2007 (→Guido den Broeder). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 topics

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Arara, Paraíba

Can you please look over my translation of this article? There's a lot left that I didn't have time for. Obrigado. Muito obrigado. Cbdorsett 16:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping up and trying to control CobraGeek and other disruptive users.

CobraGeek has repeatedly violated Wiki's NPOV and three revert rule policies in an obvious attempt to put a biased spin on the Carolina-Clemson Rivalry article. He and other anonymous users (probably just him editing anonymously) have also removed relevant material from the article to maintain their slanted POV. Here was his excuse:

"We are trying to get this right. If you have constructive input, provide, don't just vandalize the content, it will just be restored to its original state. I can see how some would say that newspaper style content might sound editorial, but if it is factual it is going to stay if it has relevence. There is significant relevence in the most recent game in the series, including its short term implications (coaching records and bowl implications included)."

No one was vandalizing anything, it's pretty clear this user has a very obvious POV interest in this article and would not tolerate changes that attempted to neutralize this bias. Current coaching records and season results have zero bearing on the subject of the rivalry as a whole. In fact, neither the 2006 nor 2007 games are of any particular historical relevance in the series. It's fairly clear we are dealing with a user who is using Wiki as a way to gloat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:CobraGeek

This user is demonstrating what appears to be genuine remorse on their talk page, and claims to no know about the 3RR. Given that I don't immediately see any evidence to the contrary, I'm going to unblock and let them know this is their last chance. Wanted you to know, since you were the blocking admin. - Philippe | Talk 03:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV.

Ay, sorry about that. :( I haven't been very active lately, so I'm out of practice (I even forgot to check what edit I was rolling back earlier >_<). Give me a while and I'll get back to normal. ;) Thank you very much for pointing that out. · AndonicO 19:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I never forget how to ride... now you've worried me. · AndonicO 19:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This user has abused his admin privileges in the past. He has been blocking users and protecting their talk pages because that user was editing his own talk page. Shiggity (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Stamp

Thanks for the stamp, curious why you thought of me though? Cirt (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC). Hrm, weird, it didn't come from you, it came from this user giving them out with your sig: Vatomanocu (talk · contribs). Now I'm really confused! Cirt (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC).

• Hehe, I had to check my history to make sure it was you this time. Thanks! Cirt (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC).

Odd...

This (and all the other contributions this editor is making) are all in your name. Know anything about it? Thought you ought to know.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I've chatted it over with the user in question and he's correcting all his erroneous signatures. Problem solved. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Stamp

Here's a stamp from the Faroe Islands for you! Stamps from the Faroe Islands somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Vatomanocu (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Blockade2.PNG

Husond, I'm curious what the Chinese characters on your block template translate to. Cheers, Caknuck (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You have mail

As the header says. – Steel 20:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Hi Húsönd, thanks for the stamp! I've never been to the Faroe Islands, but I once met a couple from there, and it sounds like a nice place. Thanks again! Love, Kyoko 02:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User: CobraGeek

Getting pretty sick of this CobraGeek character. They have identified themselves as a Clemson University fan in the WikiProject College Football list and if you check their contribs I think it's quite clear there is an anti-USC agenda at work here. Clearly a user who regularly violates NPOV policy and no longer deserves the benefit of the good faith rule. I will be watching this users edits at all USC-related articles and will remove material that has obvious POV problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.37.65 (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The bundle of axes

Hi, I commented on my talk page when you awarded it to me, but I just have to tell you incase you didn't see it. That is my all time favorite award I've ever received for anything on Misplaced Pages. I really want to offer my thank you for it. Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no I don't mind in the slightest. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

^_^

PeaceNT (talk) 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.
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Cheers and happy editing!

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. It was good to find an interesting subject to work with. Giano (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the birthday wishes :) Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Kurów

Could you please write an article about Kurów on Mirandese language here ( http://kurow-wiki.openhosting.pl/mwl:Kurow ) – just a few sentences based on http://kurow-wiki.openhosting.pl/pt:Kurów ? Please.

PS. Article about Kurów is already on 246 languages and dialects. If your village/town/city isn't yet on PL Misplaced Pages, I can do article about it. Only you on PT and EN wiki, speak on Mirandese. Pietras1988 (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Yes, in this wiki were vandalisms so I semi-protected Wiki and everybody must register :/. Pietras1988 (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Boicote sobre a Wikipédia em português

E aí, tudo bom? Só por curiosidade: por que você 'boicota a Wikipédia em português'? (Bom, pelo menos é o que diz lá entre as suas userboxes...). Não que eu tenha lá muita simpatia pela Wikipédia em português, só curiosidade mesmo. Eumedemito (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

É... Seus argumentos têm sentido. Acho que é por esses mesmos motivos que quase nunca uso a Wikipédia em português. Estava tentando começar minha participação por lá, e a minha primeira reação foi exatamente a de querer proteger uma enciclopédia única para br/pt, logo depois de ver o embrião da nova "Wikipédia brasileira", o que, na minha opinião, era puro bairrismo. Aparentemente os participantes da discussão sobre esse assunto, como pode se imaginar, não são lá muito moderados, o que acaba deixando pouca margem para argumentação construtiva, não ajudando muito a definir minha opinião (especilmente considerando que a maior parte das reclamações era sobre detalhes ortográficos e sinônimos). Mas dois argumentos seus me convenceram: a dominância do pt-br e a falta geral de organização. Provavelmente tive a impressão de que quase não havia problemas em uma wp unificada justamente pelo fato da variante dominante ser a brasileira. Na verdade ainda acredito ser tecnicamente possível essa wp-pt unificada. O problema é que entra aí o fator da organização. Não sei como é em Portugal, mas o povo daqui é, no geral, notavelmente mal-organizado, não só na Wikipédia. E junta-se a isso a costumeira arrogância dos usuários mais ativos de computadores, o que só piora a situação. No fim das contas, acho que você está certo, e que a minha visão de um esforço coletivo de padronização é que é pouco realista. Mesmo assim ainda não tenho muita certeza se a minha idéia técnica não poderia ser de alguma utilidade, mesmo que em um contexto mais restrito. Eumedemito (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

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 (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi, Husond. I am aspiring to take part in the admin coaching program. I was wondering if you are willing to take me up for coaching. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome

Hi, could you reinstate the protection of Chronic fatigue syndrome, same version as before? Users Orangemarlin and Sciencewatcher keep mutulating the article, despite a number of warnings. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've posted on the incidents noticeboard, too. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Húsönd 23:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that Guido asks for a specific version to be protected. Surely m:The Wrong Version applies here. JFW | T@lk 23:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What concerns me too is that Guido reverted bold edits by other editors, then comes here screaming that there's an edit war on. Perhaps you could have a quick look at the recent exchange, and consider whether this was an edit war or not. I don't plan to revert Guido's latest edit without further discussion, and am waiting for consensus to build up on the talkpage. A couple of reverts is not the same as an edit war. JFW | T@lk 00:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not abuse terminology to support your pov, and do not mix administrative concerns with your opinion on a topic. There is nothing 'bold' to repeatedly deleting a sourced, neutral section that was the recent result of constructive co-operation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I was, of course, referring to the edits made by Orangemarlin and Sciencewatcher. JFW | T@lk 20:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Just wondering, because I like to talk about it and discuss it, how come you're supporting Kosovo independence? Being a Belgrader for most of my life and a lifelong Yugoslav, it's hard for me to imagine discussing other countries' matters, especially when it comes to issues of national importance, but am always curious to see what drives people to get interested in matters of other countries, who then support ideologies of their own countries that give themselves the right to decide on the future of others. Are there any specific reasons you want independence for Kosovo? If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine too, as I said, I was just wondering... :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

man your gd

I didnt think anyone would notice ok il stop trolling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.236.124 (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

See my comments here. As an uninvolved party, I believe Guido den Broeder should be blocked for incivility and wanton violation of 3RR. To ignore these simply because the page is protected is only worsening the problem. Blocking Sciencewatcher might get the point across too. I believe that simply by protecting and not blocking, it's giving these users a chance to edit war indefinitely, and this war is just too lame to go to arbcom. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree - it appears Guido reverted 5 times in less than 12 hours, citing "consensus" for his edits while being reverted by multiple other editors. I don't think this was a case for page protection, but for a 3RR block. That said, since the page is now protected and Guido has declared an intention to ignore the other involved editors rather than discuss, perhaps you could opine at the ensuing WP:AN/I thread? MastCell 00:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR does not apply for several reasons, the easiest one being that they were different users (with different reasons, also), another that my actions were to protect due process and were unrelated to any opinion I might have. My relative incivility is not the cause of the problem, but the consequence, a reaction to the incredibly horrid incivility and abuse by opposing users in the face of which I have remained civil for a long time - we are talking many months -but have now given up after a final attempt to reason with them. Other constructive users gave up much sooner and have long left this topic, which has been dominated by SW's and JFW's behaviour since well before I joined Misplaced Pages. The root of the problem with these users is that JFW has repeatedly stated that he does not believe the / my disease to be genuine, and that SW has repeatedly insinuated that patients are / I am to blame for being or staying ill. Users which such prejudice should IMHO simply not involve themselves with the article. Concensus is a result of discussion. Two of the three opposing users did not participate in the discussion, while not all users that did participate, and came to the concensus, edited the text. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)