User talk: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 9 10 11 12 13

Vandalism revert on User:PGWG

Re. [[1]] Thanks! PGWG 19:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move for Liancourt Rocks

Just a note to thank you for keeping an open mind and taking the time to look at it again. You must have some guts to close that one. Like you seem to have observed, regardless of the way you close it you're going to get a few people who aren't that happy with it when you have that many people expressing opinions. —LactoseTI^T 22:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You are only happy that the article got moved.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.216.97.220 (talk • contribs).

Your page

Someone did this. I don't understand the edit (??), but reverted it anyway. Have a beautiful day! PeaceNT 04:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't mention it. Btw, it wasn't belated congrats, you already congratulated me a few days back (haha!) . Take care, PeaceNT 04:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

On your recent move from Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks

The checkuser confirmation that I, Davidpx, Lion369 are sockpuppets has been upturned. I strongly ask that you reconsider your decision. Please check the following link for details:

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lions3639 Cydevil38 04:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently re-reviewing. Thanks for the info. Húsönd 01:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your decision on Dokdo

As a long time editor on this article, I was just surprised to see the decision overturned. All I can see is there was no consensus. Then, after seeing that it would be not possible to move the article to Liancourt Rocks, those editors voted for Liancourt Rocks, mainly Komdori and LactoseIT, demoted every single possible vote for Dokdo and keep insisting their one-sided arguments. Recent news article regarding the vote in a Korean newspaper caused some newly signed and not registered editors to vote for Dokdo, but they were removed well before those accusations and demoting of editors voted for Dokdo began. I'm wondering how much you heard from editors for Dokdo before you overturned your decision. It happened so hastefully and I don't find any sound reason for that. Please let me know where you decision is based on. Ginnre 05:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've completed the data. Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Meat Puppet Data. Thanks. (Wikimachine 16:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

I responded there but thought it might be worth noting here to speed things along. Actually, Wikimachine, he asked if there was any data supporting massive sockpuppetry of meatpuppetry on the Liancourt Rocks side, and you have very subjectively analysed the Dokdo group instead. Ultimately, he mentioned concerns with NPOV as well, and you may wish to consider in your analysis that few Dokdo voters had any basis in any policy, just signing or exclaiming, "It's our territory! We get to name it!" or some such thing, which is not how the policies work on naming.

I think he was asking for something clearcut, like a sockpuppetry case or even stronger evidence along those lines that there was massive fraud on the one side. There wasn't, so there isn't. --Cheers, Komdori 18:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm re-reviewing my closure yet again. However, I antecipate that I shall not overturn my decision once more. The outcome of this discussion was already complicated before the outspread meat/sockpuppetry accusations from both sides. Didn't get any simpler afterwards. One thing is for certain, the outcome falls right in the borderline of any decision and therefore the final decision will, with regret, be at my discretion. Whatever my decision is it will cause some users to be unhappy so I'll naturally have Wikipedia policies back it, and at this time WP:NPOV is heavily weighing in favor of Liancourt Rocks. Húsönd 01:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, NPOV was the biggest thing among the editors to be discussed or disputed and there was not a consensus about NPOV of the title (28:43). It was not to be simply determined by one person as you did. I don't know whether you have such a authority to decide by yourself, but were it to be decided by one person like this, why would we discuss and try to bring a consensus? Then why did you hear from Komdori and LactoseIT only and didn't wait to hear couple of other opinions? My impression is, your decision is strongly influenced by those two editors. I doubt you ever read a recent article in TIME magazine about this islets where you don't find the term 'Liancourt Rocks' and local english papers usually don't use the term 'Liancourt Rocks'. That is current tendency and the term is a relic from imperialistic expasionism of the 19th century. Anyone is reluctant to use such a term these days except some Japanese people to undermine the status quo of the islets. By any measure, it was too hasteful and the decision was too abrupt. Ginnre 05:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, case closed. Once again, both sides had reasonable arguments but both can't win.--Húsönd 15:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about your hastefulness. Please be more considerate next time you gonna do such a job again. If both had reasonable arguments, it is natural not to change the status quo. Ginnre 06:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not hasteful. Once again, these things can't last forever. I can't see how a perpetual "status quo" could be any beneficial, it's just a waste of time for everybody.--Húsönd 12:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you want to defend your decision but your dealing with this case was certainly not wise. Can't you get my point? Ginnre 05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No I can't. Please get over it. --Húsönd 13:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What's not so clear that you can't get my point? I'm over with it. I'm talking about your role as an administrator and how the whole process went wrong. Don't take it personal. Ginnre 04:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Húsönd 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

Hi, I don't know if you're aware but the odd two weeks or so maybe I redesigned my userpage and used yours as a base, using a lot of your code and replacing the colors and the text. I wanted to tell you about this and (because of a recent comment made) wanted to ask you if you minded at all. If you have any problem with it I will certainly change the page, and in any event I'll credit you. Thank you. DoomsDay349 22:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! In my RFA a user noted that my "userpage is not your own" and I wanted to make sure that you were cool with me doing this. Thanks again! DoomsDay349 00:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

cyrillic

I noticed you have a full understanding of the cyrillic script. Can you provide a transliteration of "Ghazi Mullah" on this page here? Thank you.Bakaman 23:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Liancourt Rocks

I know that you are reviewing over your move of "Dokdo" to "Liancourt Rocks". I am requesting that you move the article back for several reasons.

First, we were still discussing over the article's name and the poll was not considered heavily as Parsecboy put it that it was "ruined". The poll was attacked by an enormous number of KPOV editors and then sockpuppets of "Liancourt Rocks" came and also polled. They were all removed. Your move was, in my opinion, quite abrupt, and you did not consult the rest of the participating editors.

Second, you only listened to LactoseTI and his list of sockpuppets of the Korean side. He did not put emphasis on the Liancourt Rocks side. There were many sockpuppets on the Liancourt Rocks and most of their votes were removed. However, the impression he gave was that the Korean side was just ruining the poll.

Third, about the Chosun Ilbo article that stated the massive fighting in Wikipedia, this was controversial too. User:Komdori put this on the talk page for what I saw as just more provocative issues. The writer of the article apparantly came here and made all the sockpuppets. I doubt that this would happen and I see it as a straw man sockpuppet just to make the Dokdo side look bad. There would have been Japanese newspapers and Japanese articles on a POV perspective as well that claim Liancourt Rocks though none of those articles were put on the talk page or discussed about.

Fourth, in the sockpuppet checkcase Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lions3639, I feel that this was not a fair act. User:Davidpdx has been repeatedly arguing that he is not a sockpuppet and wrongly accused. I believe that this is not fair how only Korean side editors were accused of making sockpuppets.

Fifth, the poll was already in a controversial state by the time you reviewed it. It really was not accurate and many editors that voted for "Dokdo" did not simply vote because "Dokdo is under Korean control". There were a number of good reasons before the poll. Also, the poll was not in an obvious consensus towards "Liancourt Rocks" as sockpuppets damaged the results.

I feel that you did not completely see the case at the talk page of Liancourt Rocks or think more on the decision. I am not accusing you of your decision and I am sure you did that accordingly to what you saw and what other editors commented on your talk page about.

I understand that your decision is under fire right now and many editors are complaining of the decision. I only would like to ask that you fully reconsider your move and understand both sides. Thank you Good friend100 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands

If you have a chance, could you review [[2]]?

Senkaku Islands is a similiar article to Liancourt Rocks. Instead of Korea administering Dokdo while Japan claims it, Senkaku islands is administered by Japan but claimed by China. There was a poll to move the article to "Pinnacle Islands" (an english name) or keep "Senkaku Islands". The poll was affected by Liancourt Rocks and whether it would be moved to "Liancourt Rocks" or "Dokdo".

Senkaku islands was kept because of several reasons including its usage and the administering country also affected editors' decisions as well. Senkaku islands and "Dokdo" both have similiar reasons as to why both were kept and not moved in previous polls. I agree that "Liancourt Rocks" should be consistent with "Senkaku Islands" in terms of naming. Good friend100 22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Husond - I started a discussion about renaming Senkaku Islands. I realise the Liancourt renaming discussion was probably a big headache for you, but in case you're interested anyway, please take a look at the talk page[3]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

I reporte the Patrio user for his edits to WWE One Night Stand, those Help Desk edits were made after I had reported him. TJ Spyke 04:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I had assumed he wasn't blocked based on your comment at AIV. TJ Spyke 04:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bird is the Word

Husond, is a an RfA what marriage is like? Fine for about 10 votes or so, and after that, it's just questions and judgment! Where have you been? Explain that edit! Where did that stain come from? Ect. Anyway, thanks for you support. I'd love to return the favor (all I need is twenty million dollars and a time machine). It's good to hear from you, but one complaint, a little unorthodox? I don't edit naked for a little unorthodox! Do you know how freezing cold it is in Canberra? Very! The teas-cosy on the head helps a bit though. Mega-Cheers, Dfrg.msc 07:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Steven Gerrard

Oops! We seem to have conflicted again over on WP:RPP. I just added semt+2 weeks due to BLP concerns (apparently, there's a concerted campaign going to "out" him as gay, or whatever ...). It'd already been move prot'd. Thoughts? Shall I rollback the prot? - Alison ☺ 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:66.248.85.79

Um, any chance you could block? Warnings don't seem to be having much effect... --YFB ¿ 01:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the update :-) --YFB ¿ 01:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hello there, Husond. You probably don't know me, but I'm The Random Editor. I understand I have along way to go before becoming an admin, but after you get done coaching Magnus animum, would you consider coaching me. Thanks. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 20:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, there husond. Thanks for your comments. By the way, would you mind reviewing me on my editor review. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 18:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking foward to your comments. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 19:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going to make my coach page, and was wondering if you are still willing to coach me. If you are currently to be busy, inform me when you are available, and if you don't mind you can begin the process. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 02:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The following redlink User:The Random Editor/Coach will be a blue link tomorrow. Thanks for being willing to caoch me. Good evening. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 02:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's even more absurd to name the island (Dokdo/Takeshima) after a French boat!!

Why should the island that belongs to either Korea or Japan (yet to be settled)be named after a French boat?? Since the island is still in dispute, it is more right to title as Dokdo/Takeshima, which will also indicate that it's in dispute, and not some French name. Audrinall 02:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, case closed. See above plus extensive comments on Talk:Liancourt Rocks.--Húsönd 03:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:AIV report

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. What user did I report? I'm very confused. Clamster 04:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Coachin'

OK, I'll look forward to it =D Also, if you get the chance, could you please comment on my editor review please? G1ggy! _{Review me!} 04:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll look forward to the 3000 milestone then. XFD = AFD, right? Or does that cover all of the deletion areas? G1ggy! _{Review me!} 03:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 23	4 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, banned	Admin restored after desysopping; dispute centers on suitability of certain biographies
Controversial RFA suspended, results pending	Dutch government provides freely licensed photos
WikiWorld comic: "John Hodgman"	News and notes: Another Wikipedian dies, brand survey, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 07:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

RFPP: Top Chef

I noticed that you protected Top Chef back on February 8. Given that it's been almost four months, do you think the reasons have passed for the protection? Otherwise, we should probably put a notice on the Talk page at least.

Thanks!

WLGades 09:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the unprotection.  :) WLGades 23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Magnus's RfA

Hello, Husond. Wasn't Animum's RfA supposed to be today? *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 21:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Review

Hey there Husond. Late thanks for the review. I'm going to take into consideration everything you have said. In fact, I have already decided which article I'm going to start working on. Cheers. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 02:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined protection

Hi! You declined to protect Atheism earlier, citing the protection policy. But the protection policy doesn't say "Today's Featured Articles are not to be protected" anywhere. Best wishes, DrKiernan 08:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

I forgot to thank you for that barnstar. Much appreciated. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hello, Husond, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RFA, which passed 58/0/0! I will try very hard to live up to your expectations – please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again! KrakatoaKatie 19:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or drivers such as Paris Hilton.

RE:RfA

Can you please come onto #Magnus-animum to discuss the terms? (I'm fine with your's, I just want to tell you a few of mine. :-) ) « ANIMUM » 01:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't be able to answer the questions due to some real-life goings-on until tomorrow, sorry! « ANIMUM » 20:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Hey hope you don't mind, but I co-nomed Magnus. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for reverting the vandalism on my user page:) Have a nice week and God bless:)--James, La gloria è a dio 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

James, La gloria è a dio 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the barnstar and no problem.--James, La gloria è a dio 03:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Gnome Week!

	Gnomes, unite!
File:P1000744.jpg	Hello, Husond! You are invited to participate in Gnome Week, a mass article cleanup drive between June 21 and June 28, 2007.
	This week, backlogs will be cleared. Articles will be polished. Typos will be fixed. Bad prose will be edited. Unreferenced articles will be sourced. No article will be safe from our reach! The more people who participate, the better Wikipedia will become as a result.
	I would love it if you would participate! - Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ)
Edit message

Admin Coaching

If your still doing admin coaching after you finish with Magnus, would you mind coaching me? You seem to be really detail with it, which is something I need. Thanks! ~ Wikihermit _(HermesBot) 15:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sushi

Saw your name on the Sushi talk page. As for external Links, yes, there are too many. I think first two are maybe OK. But the rest are not. What do you think? And how about this one instead? http://sushi-master.com/usa/index1.html --Oda Mari 18:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Husond. Thank you for your opinion. No objection. Regards. --Oda Mari 04:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:RfA

Can you come onto #Magnus-animum? I probably will make an Oversight request, though, for the School and the IP revealing. « ANIMUM » 01:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I allowed to contest it? In particular, you stated that the IP address was yours, not me. Jouster  (whisper) 02:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your WP:Oversight threat

Given that Steptrip/Magnus has stated that he attends the school in question, may I re-add the information to the RfA? Jouster  (whisper) 01:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I never stated the name of my school in that thread. « ANIMUM » 01:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to break in here but no, no and absolutely not. Just because he once commented in the past that his school IP was blocked does not mean you can go around publicising his school. And in response to your edit summary, oversight is not a threat but a very sensible measure in this instance to hide personal information. You are taking this to far Jouster. Please stop it. Will (aka Wimt) 01:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So, at what point does a user doff his or her cloak of anonymity? Jouster  (whisper) 01:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Common sense, Joster. And I second Will, you're taking this too far.--Húsönd 01:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I feel you're all being a bit too academic here. He has admitted that the IP in question is his, he has stated that he attends school at an IP block that is registered to the school in question, it was among his first edits, it's his most-extensively-edited page; any reasonable person would conclude it's where he attends school. Is there a policy on exactly at what point a user has forgone anonymity, in part or in whole? I seem to recall such a thing, but WP:ANON and Wikipedia:Privacy policy don't seem to mention it. I know that I can freely state that Jimbo Wales works for Wikimedia, for example. Jouster  (whisper) 02:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but a causal reader won't know the IP of the school or check the Block log to find the IP. On a related note, I've already emailed the oversight request. Thanks, « ANIMUM » 02:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

True, that's how I found out that he attended a middle school/what school. But there's a great difference between discovering that information in such an investigation and a public statement such as the one you made at his RFA. You should be aware of that. Again, common sense. :-/ --Húsönd 02:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Patently absurd. You'll want to hit this one, then, too. Which is, might I add, written by... you. Jouster  (whisper) 02:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not mention the name of his school. You are apparently failing to understand the whole concept of private information. Please be WP:CIVIL. Thank you. --Húsönd 02:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, common sense time, then. You can say that he is a middle-school student. He can say that an IP address located in the same county as his most-edited article is his. The moment I combine those two facts, I am violating privacy? Jouster  (whisper) 02:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That's one hell of a position to take. Jouster  (whisper) 07:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, please explain this. I was trying to correct the problems you cited, in deference to your authority as an administrator with regards to the policies and procedures, pending the outcome of our discussion here. Why did you revert it? Jouster  (whisper) 02:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:POINT.--Húsönd 02:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't making a WP:POINT. I was doing what Magnus tried and failed to do, as noted here. Since you can't possibly argue that he intended to make two revisions, tagged with "oversight", in which he made absolutely no change, and then went on to admit the possibility of bias against my original intent in an operation that changed not a single character of what I said, your position is untenable. As I stated above, I was acting in good faith on your recommendation of what is and isn't allowed to be said, and I was trying to implement the change that I thought Magnus was trying to make.

While we're at it, kindly consider removing the image below. If you look back through my contributions and genuinely find me to be a troll, I'll be happy to change my ways. As it stands, however, I defused the Joseph incident, Magnus only made it worse. Take a look at my Talk page, and tell me with a straight face that I do nothing but foment discord. Let's keep things in perspective. Talking to every single person who opposes him over IRC to get them to switch to neutral is not conducive to a fruitful discussion of his RfA. I'm trying not to allow someone who I don't feel is fit to be an administrator to be an administrator. Were it not for your excellent coaching, he wouldn't have a WP:SNOWball's chance. As it is, you've given him enough rote administrator theory that he will be fine running through non-contentious AfD and 3RR, but you didn't instill the crucial humility factor that would allow him to avoid those areas where he doesn't have a full grasp of policy, and his interpersonal relationship skills are not up to the task of sorting things out when he makes the wrong decision as a result. Magnus is not ready to be an administrator. I, and those who agree with me, deserve to have our opinion without being pressured into changing it. Jouster  (whisper) 07:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You did nothing to control the situation, TT did all of that. My removal and replacing was so that the non-personal info (ie everything but the IP data) would still be visible if the diff was oversighted. While I do not believe it was your intention, I do believe you're only looking at our disagreements, not my disagreements with others. « ANIMUM » 22:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image removed. I just wanted to visually express that yes, I do think that you've been trolling a bit. And although I believe that it is not your intention to foment discord, I must say that that's exactly what you are causing. Since this fight began on Magnus animum's RFA, I haven't seen any efforts from you to cool it off. Please just get over it. As for the comments to the opposers, that's a very natural and common reaction. Users are free to express their disagreements with the reasons stated by those opposing. Take Yummifruitbat, for instance. I found his concerns very reasonable as I also used to share them, so I decided to tell him why do I think those concerns can be easily resolved. He later decided to change to neutral, but if he hadn't it would still be prefectly okay. No pressure. No big deal.--Húsönd 15:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother, but...?

Will you help me? An IP user redirected the article Onigiri to Rice. It seems to be a some kind of vandalism, but I don't know what to do. Will you please take a look at it? Thank you. --Oda Mari 06:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User Jouster took care of the problem. Thanks anyway. --Oda Mari 09:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Assyrian related political userboxes

I have nominated User:Husond/Userboxes/Assyrian for deletion. -- Cat ^chi? 13:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)