User talk:ChrisO/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Turkish Kurdistan vs Syrian Kurdistan

The page would have been deleted has it not been subject to vote stacking (over a dozen of the people were invited to vote oppose to deletion). I kindly ask you to let a discussion happen. --Cat out 21:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That's purely your own POV and is hypothetical anyway - the vote found a clear majority. By all means have a discussion, but don't get your hopes up for overturning the majority in favour of keeping the article. The work done on the article since the vote has, if anything, made it an even stronger candidate to keep. I honestly don't think it's worth you spending time on it, especially considering that it's only three months since the last AfD. -- ChrisO 22:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me are you trying to accuse me of something? If so please do in a clear manner. What hopes are we talking about? --Cat out 22:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
If you're bringing the subject up again, is it because you hope to start another AfD vote to overturn the first one? That's what your comments seem to be implying - if I'm misreading them, apologies in advance. However, you've not provided any explanation of why you consider it to be a "POV title", nor what solution you have in mind. Could you please provide some more info on why you want to reopen the debate? -- ChrisO 23:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Please do not imply things from my comments. I wouldnt use that template if I wanted the article deleted. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :)
The reason I mentioned the afd for syria is that this article was created by same user with the same intent. I am only trying to salvage it to a better title.
I posted a response there. Though I have other reasons, I think those are the ones most important.
--Cat out 23:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility problem

Can you please take a look at Talk:Serbia national football team and tell me if it's just me or is it impossible to work with that anonymous person from 83.236.172.18 and 84.150.x.y? User:Lowg already attempted to make some sense of it, but they won't budge. --Joy [shallot] 18:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protecting an article when you're involved

Chris, you shouldn't be protecting or unprotecting any articles in which you're involved; I'm pretty sure that's an abuse of admin powers. Please stop doing so. Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that you, Humus and SlimVirgin are way over the line in short-circuiting an ongoing move poll. As admins, you should know better than imposing your own POV in that fashion; I'm seriously considering whether it would be worth opening an RfC on the three of you. -- ChrisO 22:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue of protecting a page which you had both voted on, and edit-warred move-warred on, would get much more mileage in an RfC, as those are much more serious issues. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, now it appears that you're reading the "making shit up" rulebook. I've made precisely eleven edits to the article in question over a period of four days (diffs for you to look at: [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7], [8],[9],[10],[11]). Do you consider making minor copyedits, fixing a grossly POV and possibly libellous claim (which nobody has tried to restore), adding an unopposed category and adding some unopposed historical background to be "edit warring?" Perhaps you're thinking of someone else. I'll expect a retraction of that assertion. As for move-protecting the page, see my comments on WP:AN/I. -- ChrisO 23:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving it three times, thus reverting three different editors, is edit-warring. That is what I was referring to. Would you prefer "move-warred"? I haven't seen that phrase used on Wikipedia before. Jayjg (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, regardless of any other issue here, we're not allowed to take admin action over pages we've recently edited, or regarding issues where we've expressed a view, and you did both. However, I suggest we forget about it, because by arguing we're playing right into the hands of the people who started this trouble, and we're doubtless making their day, so let's not. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I haven't accused you of violating 3RR. I've changed the comment to "move-warred". Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] email

could you email me? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ThanksHomey 22:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

Chris, you strike me as a reasonable editor. I'd like to discuss the issue of finding a compromise over the apartheid issue, because this is a very damaging situation that has been going on for weeks, and it's being stoked deliberately in my view. You haven't specified an e-mail address in your preferences, so would you mind e-mailing me? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli Apartheid arbitration

The move/revert war issue for Israeli Apartheid has been referred to arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid --John Nagle 00:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is laughable to see the hypocrisy of the overly-influential Wikipedians (don't even need to name them) who believe that Israeli apartheid is simply an allegation but Arab anti-semitism is a fact. Their bigotry and bias are appalling.

[edit] Yugoslavs

Could you please protect this page from unregistered users, some user(s) is/are continuously removing the infobox on the top of the page. Thanks in advance, --serbiana - talk 03:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

Now what ChrisO, you are an admin, and (with a level of suspiciousness I consider that you) are not a Serb, and have a PERSONAL opinion of what Kosovo is, and suddenly we should all obey your version of the intro? Correct? I would remind you that an admin is not the one to enforce a personal opinion in a piece of text, and keep reverting it (and having the right to punish those who disagree) just like that. You can clearly compare the version before and after the protection was lifted, the latter is far more pro-Serbian and feeding nationalistic mouths than the first. I call your reason, and try to refrain from being so pushy just because you have some admin power. Thank you, ilir_pz 11:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Apartheid (disambiguation)]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltarian's IP ranges

After extensive whois research, I have determined the IP ranges that could be used by Gibraltarian. His ISP is Gibtelecom (formerly Gibraltar Nynex Communications), and the IP ranges belonging to this ISP are 195.244.192.0/19 (195.244.192.0 to 195.244.223.255) and 212.120.224.0/19 (212.120.224.0 to 212.120.255.255). In fact, if you look at the histories of the pages he targets, you'll find plenty of 212.120 IPs as well as a few 195.244 IPs. Please note that of all the 212.120.0.0/16 IPs, only .224.0/19 traces to Gibraltar; others trace to Greece, Russia, the Netherlands, among other countries. 02:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RS map

Hi Chris. If I replied here I'd just be creating a new arena for the arguement, so I'll answer you on the talk page of Republika Srpska. I hope you'll understand. Live Forever 20:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, I've just posted my response on the Republika Srpska talk page. I am interested in your reaction. Live Forever 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HELP!

Your new version of Repbulika Srpska map is better than before, but some users are simply removing it and reverting! This is the pushing of point of view, and not facts. Do something please! --KOCOBO 03:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps of Bosnia

Hi,

user:Dado has created some new Bosnia locator maps, but without entities marked (except badly visible inter-entity line). I think this is a bad idea, so I created my own maps, with separate colors for each entity (we have that already, but those maps are in low resolution and small).

I couldn't reach a compromise with Dado, and I believe we need third opinion.

Please, see:

Could you please find some spare time to comment this. --Ante Perkovic 23:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The map at Image:Bih outline map.png should include a piece of the now-international boundary between Serbia and Montenegro. --Dzordzm 19:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right... unfortunately the map data pre-dates the two states splitting up. I'll see if I can the border outline instead. Thanks for pointing that out! -- ChrisO 19:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your locator map of Bosnia is incorrect. It shows the Brcko are of Bosnia as belonging to Republika Srpska when in fact it is a autonomous part of Bosnia known as the Brcko Distrikt. Please rectify the image --Bigz

[edit] Locator maps works!

See here: Template talk:Location map Bosnia! --Ante Perkovic 13:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Can you take a look at my message on the Kosovo talk page? It's titled "Illicit drugs". Can you help me out? --KOCOBO 03:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltar

Hi! I have been obliged to start an RfC on Gibnews' erasals of sources. We would appreciate your imput..

Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gibnews#Evidence_of_disputed_behavior

--Burgas00 22:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I know its a bit early. Actually I started the RfC by mistake, while trying to figure out how it was done. Then I just filled it in when I couldnt figure out how to erase it.:-) Im not really all that sure what an RfC is exactly... I have nothing personal agains Gibnews, Im sure he is a nice guy and he has contributed alot to Gibraltar related articles. The thing is that he has gone way over the top. There is no way of trying to convince him that I do not belong to a conspiracy against Gibraltar and that I have no problem with the territory remaining british. Same goes for other users. I respect his opinions, its just the constant source removing that has pushed me to reporting him. I have been trying to reason with him for a long time now. --Burgas00 22:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My view is that deeds speak louder than fine words; it is part of Official Spanish Govrnment policy to try and attack any organisations, or things in Gibraltar which generates income -or- give us international credibility. This is well documented and ranges from boycotting dog shows, to pulling out of bowling tournaments if Gibraltar participates. Accusations that the Gibraltar finance centre is involved in 'wrong doing' are a regular feature of life and have been investigated and found baseless. It is established that the term tax haven now had a perjorative meaning, and a large amount of effor from user:burgas00 has gone into insisting that Gibraltar IS a tax haven despite there being no evidence to support this claim.

'Reasoning' with me also involved a claim that the 'original Gibraltarians' now live in San Roque, having moved there in 1704 and the like. I am not asserting that this user is acting in bad faith, simply that his opinion of things in Gibraltar is based on the propaganda dished out by the MAE which is a crock of something browner than gold.

There is a saying that 'you are not paranoid if they really are out to get you' - in the case of the Spanish Government, a quick search of Google shows that there is a disproportionate obsession with Gibraltar, and most of the edits from Spanish IP addresses in Wikipedia reflect this.

--Gibnews 14:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I note that user:burgas00 is continuing his abusive behaviour on the Gibraltar talk pages and is now reproducing articles from newspapers which he belives show Gibraltar to be engaged in some global criminal conspiracy. Regardless of their worth they remain copyright and I request you remove them so nobody can accuse me of tidying up his mess. --Gibnews 17:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations by Terryeo of personal attacks

I request you take a look at these. They are not on me, but on two other users. I don't agree they are personal attacks and just come across as incivility and not assuming good faith by the accuser: User_talk:Tilman#In_accordance_with_WP:PAIN.2C_please_stop_your_personal_attacks Talk:Narconon#Reference_15 --Fahrenheit451 00:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Macedonia_(terminology)

As I understand, you are interested in Macedonia related topics... so you might want to check this out. --Dijxtra 07:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ChrisO

I think it's time to protect the Kosovo article again. Ferick is only waiting for me to break the 3rd revert rule, so he can push his biased vision of the article, and now IP numbers are wreaking havoc on the article. Plus, they (and I'm pretty sure they're all Ferick) keep removing the drug topic you added and I proposed. Protecting it is a reasonable solution for the time being. Thank you, --KOCOBO 01:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] map issue

First off, is not accurate representation. If you zoom in it is more obvious.

Image:LocationSerbia.png Image:LocationKosova.PNG

If it should be added, should be the same style as England/Republika Srpska maps for consistancy and fairness, as I thought you were in agreement with this from RS discussion? I will try do a formal writeup for talk page later tonight.

Example from RS article:
Image:RSLocation.PNG
The location of Republika Srpska as part of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Europe.

--Lowg 18:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


I saw your image you created, and am assuming it is not finished yet? Image:The_position_of_Kosovo_within_Serbia.PNG

Compare with RS map above and England map: Image:LocationEngland.PNG --Lowg 21:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't create it - it's the work of Bože pravde. Could you address queries about it to him? -- ChrisO 21:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that, should have checked. --Lowg 21:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Mayall

I see that you have deleted the article on Mark Mayall, stating that comments by Users who prefer not to have (equally anonymous) User Names were excluded. This is surely a travesty. On Wikipedia's Home Page is very clearly states that anyone can edit and presumably that means that anyone can give a respectable comment. I suggest you are out of order deleting this article, which also appears to be part of a witch-hunt by the nominator. Chelsea Tory 10:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bay of Gibraltar

Just a quick note. Thanks for your efforts to improve the article. Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 21:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It needed some improvements anyway! -- ChrisO 22:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Evidence

Notwithstanding that I think you, FWIK, to have acted appropriately in the instant case, I write only to express that your presenting—laconically but perspicacioulsy—the issues (at least insofar as you've been able to ascertain them to be) is admirable and a practice that others ought to emulate. It is long settled that the ArbComm may undertake to raise issues sua sponte (for reasons that I think to be compelling), but it certainly is preferable that the participants should state explicitly and clearly the questions they hope that the ArbComm might resolve, if only because an ArbComm decision is much better understood in the context of clearly presented issues. Good on ya... Joe 03:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting my Links from Nehemiah, Ezra etc.

Why? I deleted a link to a BAND called Nehemiah, which is obviously not supposed to be there, and put an article about Ezra, Nehemiah and Artxerxes that is about Judaism. What's wrong with that? 86.141.60.74 16:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:External links. We have a standing policy of avoiding links to resources that require the use of external applications to view them. -- ChrisO 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about my KLA, Serbian conflict, etc. links then? 86.141.60.74 17:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Los Barrios

It might be time to stick a semi-protect on that page, now that he's hit it a few times, like we did with Gibraltar, Algeciras, and the rest. What do you think? — Rebelguys2 talk 17:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It'll probably be necessary, unfortunately... I'll keep an eye on it and semi-protect it if (or more likely when) he hits it again. -- ChrisO 17:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Kosovo position within Serbia.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Kosovo position within Serbia.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Hi Chris, thanks for your note. I don't know yet whether I want to get involved, only because the page move thing seems like a tempest in a teapot, and to provide evidence giving an overview of the whole dispute would be a lot of work. That was why I was keen on mediation, in order to actually sort out the situation rather than have a post mortem. The only thing I can say is that wheel warring requires the multiple use of admin powers, and I know that I only moved once and didn't need to use an admin tool to do it. However, whether pointing that out will make any difference, I don't know, but I'll give it some thought. Don't be too disheartened; this is still at the workshop stage. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your definition of wheel warring, the move I made didn't undo any administrative action. It was just a straightforward move, after you reverted Humus's. Your action wasn't an administative action (so far as I know). I think that arbcom case was referring to admins undoing each other's admin actions using their tools; otherwise, it would be horribly confusing to work out when something was a wheel war (but I don't know for sure, so I should go and read the case). Certainly, I know that many admins (including most of the arbcom) go by the principle that, for example, if A blocks a user, and B unblocks, B is not wheel warring because there was no repetitive act (i.e. the block was the first act of B's). It's only if A reblocks that A is then wheel warring, because then he will have done the same thing twice. But if another admin reblocks, then it's not wheel warring, because then it becomes that admin's first act. I don't actually agree with this definition myself, but I know it's the one that most of them use. However, to get into that is wikilawyering, and it's process fetishism that kept this dispute going, so I feel disinclined to go down that path. The thing that is unjust is that (a) without any clear definition of "wheel war," we're somehow supposed to know instinctively when we're doing it; (b) the people who started this dispute and kept it going appear not to be being sanctioned; and (c) the proposed length of blocks is wildly disproportionate. However, I'm afraid there comes a point with me when I tire of arguing, no matter the consequences. Perhaps I'll snap out of it and submit some evidence, but I do wonder whether there's any point. Having said that, don't let my mood affect you. It ain't over till the fat lady sings, so keep your chin up. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DSAMUN

Hey -- not sure if you realized, but you reverted an edit that removed PROD from this article. I deprodded it and have sent it to AfD. Just letting you know. Mangojuicetalk 01:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Apotheosis of homer text.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Apotheosis of homer text.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sockpuppetry on RfC

I think a checkuser should be made on bxlbaby and Azmoc contrasting them with Gibraltarian. What do you think? I dont think its Gibnews who is responsible though...

Thanks --Burgas00 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, why don't you propose it? It would be interesting to see if they're (a) the same user and (b) if they come from the Gibraltar range of IP addresses. I don't think it's Gibraltarian, though - the style seems to be different (though I could be wrong...) -- ChrisO 23:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deir Yassin massacre

As a matter of process, 1) you needed to put a {{moveprotected}} tag, 2) You needed to list the article at Wikipedia:List of protected pages, and 3) as someone who is very much involved in the dispute (see your entry on talk:Deir Yassin massacre, are you certain that it was proper that you made the decision to lock the page? As an administrator, you need to take extra precautions to prevent the appearance of a misuse of sysop powers. -- Avi 12:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was interrupted by a phone call before I could finish actions 1 and 2. I'll do them now. As for 3, I've not been involved in editing and moving the article, and my involvement on the talk page has been limited to advising the parties on Wikipedia policies, providing some data on usage and trying to help the parties to move forward. The move protection is a strictly temporary measure to ensure that a move war doesn't resume while discussions are ongoing. The article has been at its current name for four years; asking the parties to leave it there a few days longer won't cause any harm.
I don't believe that level of involvement is such that a claim of misuse of sysop powers would be justifiable. That said, if you feel it's inappropriate please feel free to ask another administrator to unprotect it. -- ChrisO 12:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that you added the tag and notification yourself. I would have appreciated you waiting for me to do it. Regarding your edit summary, "Disingenuous to protect the page and not mention it. Process is also important", might I remind you we're supposed to assume good faith? -- ChrisO 13:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skenderbeg division

Chris, thanks for noticing possible problem and for quick reaction. It’s very hard to find source about crimes of Skenderbeg division that are not Serbian or from period of communist rule in Yugoslavia. Normaly Albanian historians won’t bother with this topic and any western literature that I have just claim that this unit had such meagre military value and don’t waste too many lines on it.

I don’t think that I am objective enough to be able to decide which source is reliable and which is not. The author of the article used as source is Carl Kosta Savich. You can see information about this author in the article about him here on Wikipedia. It sure looks like self-promotion but if data in this article is truth he looks like he knows a lot about this subject. If I could confirm that his work has been used by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, would it be enough? If not, do you think that any other Serbian source apart from the one that I already used could be considered reliable? This is realy complicated! --Marko M 13:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Halo Chris,

You didn’t answer to my question about sources concerning crimes of Skenderbeg division during WW2. If I am badgering you just tell me and I’ll find another victim.

About Carl Kosta Savich. His work has been cited on the US Holocaust Memorial Museum website in Washington, DC. [12]. If he is good enough for them, is he good enough for Wikipedia. --Marko M 07:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Marko, I forgot to reply earlier (I've been a bit tied up!). I'll look into Savich and give you a reply shortly. -- ChrisO 07:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your page protection

Chris, note for you. [13] SlimVirgin (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied to it. If you feel it's inappropriate, then please feel free to unprotect it. -- ChrisO 13:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useless Poll

A poll determined by partisan reasons will have no bearing and no obligation. This is the second time you are doing this: Whenever you realize there are more active people that support your partisan view, you introduce a poll. This solves nothing- in two weeks the balance of power may change, and I can introduce the same poll and win it. When will the cycle stop? Polls do not determine facts. And for God’s sake stop protecting pages in which you are heavenly involved. What’s even worst, you protect pages when they are reverted to your preferred version. Very unethical behavior indeed! Ferick 20:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useful Poll

Well, it's useful in that it's raised an interesting discussion! Just thought I'd say hello here and mention that I've replied in the article's talk page. And also emphasise that I'm interested in the discussion, and not trying to be argumentative... worth saying since these pages are obviously pretty prone to nightmare revert battles, and I don't want you to worry that you've got another argumentative type to deal with! ;-) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 23:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I am walking an extremly thin line but in the strict and absolut sense I have not broken it

I have not broken the 3rr rule in the absolut sense but I do walk a thin line. But thanks for pointing it out and please join in the fun and please please please read my edits and tell me what you think of it my very last one I think is nice but then again I think all my edits are nice. (Supermos 23:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

Ahh you reverted me, now I must re-write the whole text yet again, and I have discussed it on the talk page I think I am the person with the most edits on the talk page. But I do believe that people are now just reverting for the sake of reverting. Check out the nordic countries article see what it says or read the scandinavia article below the war zone and you will see that this untouched and peaceful place does point out that scandinavia is made up of 3 kingdoms, but as I have said so many times people have stoped reading and now only revert for the sake of reverting, except me ofcurse I actually read. My last post on the talk page kinda sums it all up, but hey if you also want to join in the fun and just revert for the sake of reverting then by all means do so. Or you could try and add to the context by checking out the facts for yourself, in the end it is all up to you.

[edit] Scandinavia mediation

Feel free, if you have the stomach for it. Haukur 23:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)