User talk:Husond/Archive 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 RoK Redirect 2 Translation request 3 University of... 4 Borders of the continents 5 Nauru 6 thanks 7 Major unilateral edits to the article on Kosovo 8 Hello 9 Defying Logic 10 Hello again 11 Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008. 12 .eu on EU countries 13 List of European countries‎ --> diacritics 14 RE: Your comment to my new section on the Kosovo Talk Page entitled "The rest of the article" 15 External links posted on pages 16 Your protection of Mazanderani 17 Franjo Tudjman 18 Thank you for sanity on Mazandarani language 19 Smile! 20 Beamathan 21 Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008. 22 Mazanderani 23 Results are in 24 Hello, would you do me a favour please? 25 please advise 26 Rfb participation thanks 27 Impersonator? 28 American English 29 Semi protect 30 Desenrascanço 31 Nomination 32 Unblock request 33 Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008. 34 RFA Thanks 35 Burma dispute tag 36 Full-protection for: "Copt", "Coptic flag" & "Template:Copts" 37 The Awareness Center 38 Keep up the great work 39 May 2008 40 Threats 41 Thanks! 42 Move 43 firecrackers 44 Be careful 45 User:70.186.172.75's edits to Silberbauer 46 Question -- ArbComm probation violated? 47 Just Curious 48 Myanmar to Burma 49 Burma/Myanmar 50 WP:FAR nomination of Surtsey

RoK Redirect

""I also don't agree, users searching for "Republic of Kosovo" may well be searching for plain Kosovo itself and all its related matters, not a single line section somewhere""

Well then your problem is with weak section within the Kosovo article, not the redirect. The redirect is correct. I also think a user searching for plain Kosovo would just search for Kosovo. Again, if you think that the RoK section needs beefing up than do so. Don't put an incorrect redirect. I've changed it back to the correct way. Thanks Beam 00:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You apparently didn't read my summary. I read yours, and it's wrong. I explained it to you sir. You are creating the problem. I won't enter into an edit war tonight, but I will change it back tomorrow. Myself and others are correct to do it that way. You have a problem with the section in the Kosovo article. You should put your effort into improving that section instead of incorrectly redirecting something, against not only logic but myself and DAB. Simply saying the section isn't' good doesn't mean it is not the correct redirect. I ask you to revert it yourself, so I don't have to. This will allow you to take your own advice regarding problems. Regard, Beam 02:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Beam, it's futile to threat an incoming revert war. Revert wars never go the way of those who start them unilaterally. There's no consensus for your intended redirect target, and that should suffice for you to give up on this. Siding with dab won't help. And I don't really see what's the purpose of accusing me of trying to get my way when I was merely undoing an unilateral and rather unreasonable action. Think about it. Regards, Húsönd 02:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not threating a revert war! Wow! Anyway, telling me to give up is very strange and I'd even consider that against Wikipedia. And for you tell me to "think about it" is either an example of drastic ignorance on your part or you're actually being a jerk. I can't honestly tell, but either way I don't appreciate your needless condescending tone. And last time I checked unilateral didn't mean me and another editor who are quite well versed in the Kosovo articles on Wikipedia. Let's go over the facts AGAIN:

- The Kosovo article is about Kosovo.

- The Kosovo article has a section about the RoK

- Someone looking for the RoK is probably looking to read about the RoK.

With those facts, how can you call it unreasonable? Pretty strange Husond my friend, it's as if you have some sort of agenda, and by belittling me you feel that my opinions are invalid. Again, I think your problem is with the section on RoK. I recommend you beef up the section, so that when they get redirected there they'll be something to read.

Think about it. Regards, Beam 03:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

People looking for RoK quite properly gets that disambiguation page (and Republic of Kosovo is likely well down in the liklihood of being what someone who gets there is looking for); you two ought to be more careful in your discussion.

The section redirect for Republic of Kosovo is eminently sensible.

• Note in particular that it is the same article, with or without the section redirect which merely places your cursor on the page. If you are some random reader looking for information, you don't find what you are looking for in that particular section, and you don't have enough sense to scroll through the rest of the article, maybe nobody should let you get your hands on any encyclopedia.

Unless I'm missing something, I see no reason whatsoever for this not to go to the particular section. Not even any reason that someone might object to as pushing a particular point of view or find objectionable for whatever reason. What is the real problem here, anyway? Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation request

Hi,

I was wondering if I could bother you with a short translation request... Could you please translate the last two sentences of this news article (for Filipe Nhussi)? Particularly, how would "Comité Nacional dos Combatentes da Luta de Libertação Nacional" be translated? I want to translate it as "National Committee of Veterans of the War of National Liberation" or "National Committee of Veterans of the National Liberation Struggle" (I'm not certain whether luta is more accurately translated as struggle or conflict/war), but I'm not sure whether either of those would be completely accurate.

My ability to translate Portuguese → English is very limited, and my ability to write it is virtually non-existent. I'm turning to you since you're the only Portuguese-speaking editor with whom I've previously interacted (that I remember, at least).

Thank you, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It does help -- thank you! :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

University of...

Hi Husond, Hope you are doing well. I recently restored the redirect from University of Prishtina to University of Priština, as for the WP:RM a while back. Although the latter is in very poor shape, keeping the former as a separate article could be seen as a POV fork. It is a difficult take. My reasoning, aside the out of process content fork recreation, was that the "new" University of Prishtina article did not even have a hat note to University of Priština (hence revalidating my opinion that it was created as a fork). Considering you have had to deal with the Kosovo / Republic of Kosovo case not long ago, what would you do in this instance? --Asterion^talk 05:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Borders of the continents

Hi Husond, thought you might be interested in the edits on this page [1], all edits from 22 April (starting with Mathsci) and [2] (starting with Corticopio) are quite strange. Regards, Kotlyarov (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably should've given a little background info first. I check that page every now and then, as well as Talk:Europe so I'm familiar with Polscience and know that you're the admin that's helped out there in the past. Sorry if my initial message was a little cryptic, especially coming from someone you didn't know! Kotlyarov (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I wasn't offended, just amused :-) Kotlyarov (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Husond, it seems they're having trouble at Asia with a user deleting Georgia. Could you look into it if you have time? Kotlyarov (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately it seems Selma Kaufmann has restored a map on Southwest Asia (originally uploaded by User:UltioUltionis), with Georgia missing, and tried to cover it by vandalising it, so that it would be pushed down in the edit history. It's unlikely that 10 different people would vandalise the page on one day (May 8). Sorry to place this on you again, but you and Alison know this user the best, and any reversion might be futile given the scope of this. Regards, Kotlyarov (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for looking into it. Regards, Kotlyarov (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nauru

Please ee international reaction to the 2008 kosovo declaration of independence talk page and perform an edit request. everyone agrees Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Its ok. I just wanted it doing and i know your am admin. But thanks anyway ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

Major unilateral edits to the article on Kosovo

Please, keep an eye on the major undiscussed additions made by user BožePravde. I have undone his edits twice already and I do not want to entangle myself in violation of the 3-rv rule.--Getoar (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

BožePravde has placed an infobox pertaining to the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohia. According to UNSC Resolution 1244, Serbia has no right to govern Kosovo and has no authority in practice either. I would suggest such an historical infobox be removed and used in other articles where it would deemed proper.--Getoar (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Husond. I hope you are not taking offense of what Dbachmann wrote on the Kosovo article. As I wrote in the talk page of that article, all your anwers are reasonable and constructive.

I have tried to start a discussion about a formulation that is used on the Kosovo article under the section "Rule of law". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Sentence_that_should_be_removed. Beamathan and partly Dbachmann have done what they could to discredit my initiative and instead of giving an answer, they just made comments about me. Could you please take a look an make a comment about om proposal. Thanks.--Noah30 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Defying Logic

I won't edit that anymore. Enjoy your illogical redirect though.

If you were up to it, I'd love to speak about this to you personally. I can give you my phone number and we can actually discuss it if you'd like. I don't think I can express my opinions on your (Personal attack removed) with text.

But until then, I hope you're very happy that logic has lost out to your incessant edit warring. Good day! Or as you say: Regards, Beam 17:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again

Could you please do some edit requests on that article which i always seem to be asking you to edit haha. there is "Edit request - Palestine" and "Malaysia - edit request 2". So i was wondering if you would do the honor of performing these edits for us ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. Have a good time in Portugal ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 17	21 April 2008	About the Signpost

BLP deletion rules discussed amidst controversial AFD	Threat made against high school on Wikipedia, student arrested
Global login, blocking features developed	WikiWorld: "Disruptive technology"
News and notes: Wikimania security, German print Wikipedia, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes	WikiProject Report: The Simpsons
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 16:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

.eu on EU countries

Hey... why not .eu on countries cctld . The romania article already has it.. and i think a few others have .eu added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.127.75.158 (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

List of European countries‎ --> diacritics

Thanks for putting those back in and correcting Iceland. I was actually going to do that myself a while back, but then Kosovo went and declared independence, so that took up all of my pre-designated time allotment! Thanks again! Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 01:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Your comment to my new section on the Kosovo Talk Page entitled "The rest of the article"

Are you trying to be rude to me? I'm not joking, do you think I'm some sort of idiot? You act as if you do, making comments that imply my idiocy. I am quite aware of how Wikipedia works, my "friend", and of course valued contributions are welcome in any areas. Again, you're inference isn't very civil but I don't care how you try to make me look. I know you know why I made this section, and I know you're aware of exactly what I'm talking about and what I'm trying to accomplish. I don't understand why you're against me. Beam 04:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sanctions have been implemented. Rudget (Help?) 15:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

External links posted on pages

Can you please acxtually look at the descriptions of the websites, and maybe the pages to actually learn that in most cases, and mine the site links provided actually have something to do with the certain topic of that page. E.g The links I posted on Polynesia were to a site about the cultures of Ocaeania, which includes a article on the Polynesian culture. Thanks Kentynet (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your protection of Mazanderani

Your protection and setting to the long period were not true about this issue, It is exactly sharp that the vandalizer user does not contribute to us, and keeps on vandalising the page, There are too long discussions done about it, Previous protections were not full, And also were not on this current edition, All of the disputes are on this, and not the previous edition, This user used just references stating dialect without any knowladge of what wroted on them and those references were entered by myself, Please revert it or unprotect it or semi-protect it or finally block this user who was blocked from editing before, Thank you. --Parthava (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Franjo Tudjman

Both are possible spellings in the English language; but one is normal usage, and the other is used only by pedants and Croatian nationalists. The WP:RM discussion was a disgrace and an embarassment; it did however show, as even some of the Croatians admitted, that Tudjman is more common. The article should be tagged for it, and I would not be surprised to find that it has more substantive flaws. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop blanking easily supported consensus statements. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:10, 7 May 2008 (UTc)

I apologize for losing my temper. But your position is blatant suppression of information. I have no confidence in your impartiality, and will join any motion of recall. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for sanity on Mazandarani language

As a Mazandarani I appreciate you protecting the entry from vandals who want to bring in their own POV into a basic linguistic subject. Thanks and keep up the good worl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.175.186 (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Smile!

Thanks for the return smile! :) Acalamari 02:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the Barnstar! :) Acalamari 03:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan

What do you make of his contributions now? Do they necessitate a reduce in topic ban length? If not, I'll understand. Regards, Rudget (Help?) 15:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

He has contributed further to the discussion on my talk page, and it clear there is deadlock for now. I had to review his contributions to a further extent than I did before, and I found some positive diffs in there that were encouraging. I don't doubt that you two will clash again at some time in the future, and I have therefore implemented a restriction on this talk page for any rude behaviour he may conduct here. If there is renewed incivility coming from Beamathan's account, as I say, contact me again. Regards, Rudget (Help?) 11:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 18	2 May 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure	Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA	WikiWorld: "World domination"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Did You Know ...	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 19	9 May 2008	About the Signpost

Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity	WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 06:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Mazanderani

Here is my definations, which could help you understanding who is the vandal?
She first appeared 27th of May removing the source and imposing her nonesenses, Then 31st of May 2007, My friend from Sweden entred the list of works on language what this user later when she understands that her works marked as vandalism used them because of having dialect in them, without awaring what wrotted there, Many of user including user:Shervink, user:Heja helweda, user:Hborjian, user:Ankimai,... When user:Visviva asked for reference, she just copy/paste the references having the word dialect to preventing her vandals getting reverted.
He also removed the reliable source, As linguistics know that two languages are not intelligble, This just has political background in the Pahlavi era, when all of the local cultures and languages censored, See Jahani's Work. Not only sources, list of references and many others as this one claiming that it is a language, Johannes Dorn researched about it some 6 years resulting in Masanderanisch Sprache german for mazanderanish language and not dialect.
Without needing the entire source of those, Anyone could understand that it is a hoax and Sources are claiming that it's one of caspian dialects, Since caspian dialects are intelligble from region to the neighbor region but not from far east to the far west, both mazanderani and gileki are two dialects of caspian language, See the map created by myself in Caspian languages page. --Parthava (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Results are in

Cheeky little Husond, you :) Dunno whether I should slap you or hug you ...

{{hugggggs}} so :) - Alison ^❤ 05:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, would you do me a favour please?

Hi, could you please sort out 77.46.209.231 [3], take a look at his contributions on his recently created account, you will see that he has broken 3RR, he is incredably POV, he has vandalised pages and has personally attacked people such myself ;) haha. I have warned him, see his talk page. Thanks Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

User 69.252.213.14 has also broken 3RR using a new account to cause trouble [4] Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

HAHA yeh he was lol. You were in Portugal right? How was it? Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

please advise

Hello again. Over at talk:international reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence we have a Ukraine-related update request that's consensual with one objection with a bogus justification: that a biased paraphrase was introduced. It's not true. The update is an attributed quote of a 16 April 2008 Ukrainian government statement describing what the Prime Minister recently said Ukraine is doing concerning recognizing or not Republic of Kosovo, as published on its own website. It replaces outdated information attributed to 2 nongovernment officials: an older statement by the President pretty much to the same effect as the newer evidence, and an opinion of someone in the parliament. Is this real consensus without legitimate opposition, and if so, would you care to implement it? Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 15:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. It's tomorrow, and the expanded edit continues to be opposed only by that editor, without a rational basis (as noted below his newest say). Could you please investigate the merits of the case, and do what you think is the right? Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 21:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Husond.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your both your early and strong support. -- Avi (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Impersonator?

Is this an impersonator or were you creating a doppelganger :)?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind...with the creation of this account, I'm guessing its this Polscience fellow you have been blocking recently.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed - and a whole lot more besides. Ugh! - Alison ^❤ 04:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

American English

Please do not insert "by Americans" or "in American English" next to the phonetic transcriptions. That's an unsourced point of view, therefore not valid. Thank you. Húsönd 22:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The phonetic transcription itself is unsourced to begin with. Moreoever, pronunciations should always indicate which language they are transcribing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.192.126.236 (talk • contribs)

While I have explained my edits ("pronunciations should always indicate which language they are transcribing"), you still have not explained what is so wrong with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.192.126.236 (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"but it is not correct to add who says what." : yes it is, the Manual of Style requires it ! It should be noted that these are not the correct pronunciations, especially if the correct one is not given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.192.126.236 (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Again, you are free to add correct pronunciations if you believe that the ones on those articles are incorrect or do not represent the entirety of the English speakers." It does not represent the pronunciation in the original language ! It should be noted somehow that it does not. Again, the Manual of Style requires it. Also, now that you mention it, there seems to be different pronunciations for most of those names in English, which the articles also fail to indicate. Surely then it is best to get rid of English pronunciation altogether as has been done with Zdeno Chara. 86.192.126.236 (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. It is supposed to be the English pronunciation. You can add another pronunciation, but if you have only one, it's understood to be the English pronunciation. It is the English wikipedia. If he wants to add another pronunciation for Meszaros, I've got no objection, but the words 'in English' are unnecessary. WP:PRON is the reference to look. Alaney2k (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This user has gone on this rant every few months for awhile now. I am surprised I didn't catch it this time. -Djsasso (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi protect

on Serbian parliamentary election, 2008 there are many anonymous editors, who are making the page WP:POV. I cant revert there edits as i would be breaching WP:3RR. So was wondering if you would change the protection level of the page to Semi-Protected, to stop anonymous users and newly created accounts from editing the page to stop all this POV business please. Thanks  ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Desenrascanço

"Strong Delete Although it's a widely known slang word in Portugal, this doesn't merit an article on the English Wikipedia (not even on the Portuguese Wikipedia would this survive). Besides, it's just a blatant original research, unsourced/unverifiable and complete WP:BOLLOCKS.--Húsönd 21:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)"

You voted to delete this article, which I found very ineteresting and was hoping to find it and quote it, but apparently Wikipedia took your advice and deleted it. Setting aside the slangy and unrefined aspect of the word, considering the concept in wide semantic (english) terms as an "innate capacity to improvise in adverse conditions", it might interest you to know that world scholars and specialists, at land's end to find a "scientific" explanation, might be seriously considering "desenrascanço" as the hitherto "unsatisfactory" explanation for a country with an economy that should, according to all canones of Economy, be by now in total shambles. In my own particular view, it seems obvious that in a society where individuals have it all laid out for them, and all procedures are standardized, there's little room for improvisation. On the contrary, in a society where everything is an obstacle and nothing can be done without substantial effort, the capacity to improvise becomes well and accutely developped, even sophisticated. Yes, it's slang. But it's not "complete bollocks". Among other things, it's the way the portuguese have found to resist a standardized view of globalization, the way to make a difference, and a way to survive. The word and its concept should therefore also survive in Wikipedia, in all languages. Copy of the Newspaper article follows:

• • • • start of copy****

In "Diário de Notícias"

João César das Neves

"Portugal fez tudo errado, mas correu tudo bem."

Esta é a conclusão de um relatório internacional recente sobre o desenvolvimento português.

Havia até agora no mundo países desenvolvidos, subdesenvolvidos e em vias de desenvolvimento. Mas acabou de ser criada uma nova categoria: os países que não deveriam ser desenvolvidos. Trata-se de regiões que

fizeram tudo o que podiam para estragar o seu processo de

desenvolvimento e... falharam.

Hoje são países industrializados e modernos, mas por engano. Segundo a fundação europeia que criou esta nova classificação, no estudo a que o DN teve acesso, este grupo de países especiais é muito pequeno. Aliás, tem mesmo um só elemento: Portugal.

A Fundação Richard Zwentzerg (FRZ), que se tornou famosa no ano passado pelo estudo que fez dos "bananas da república", iniciou há uns

meses um grande trabalho sobre a estratégia económica de longo prazo.

Tomando a evolução global da segunda metade do século XX, os cientistas da FRZ procuraram isolar as razões que motivavam os grandes falhanços no

progresso. O estudo, naturalmente, pensava centrar-se nos países em

decadência. Mas, para grande surpresa dos investigadores, os mais altos índices de aselhice económica foram detectados em Portugal, um dos países que tinham também uma das mais elevadas dinâmicas de

progresso.

Desconcertados, acabam de publicar, à margem da cimeira de Lisboa, os seus resultados num pequeno relatório bem eloquente, intitulado: "O País Que Não Devia Ser Desenvolvido"

- O Sucesso Inesperado dos Incríveis Erros Económicos Portugueses."

Num primeiro capítulo, o relatório documenta o notável comportamento

da economia portuguesa no último meio século. De 1950 a 2000, o nosso produto aumentou quase nove vezes, com uma taxa de crescimento anual sustentada de 4,5 por cento durante os longos 50 anos. Esse

crescimento aproximou-nos decisivamente do nível dos países ricos. Em

1950, o produto de Portugal tinha uma posição a cerca de 35 por cento do valor médio das regiões desenvolvidas. Hoje ultrapassa o dobro desse nível, estando acima dos 70 por cento, apesar do forte

crescimento que essas economias também registaram no período. Na

generalidade dos outros indicadores de bem-estar, a evolução portuguesa foi também notável.

Temos mais médicos por habitante que muitos países ricos. A

mortalidade infantil caiu de quase 90 por mil, em 1960, para menos de

sete por mil agora. A taxa de analfabetismo reduziu-se de 40 por cento em 1950 para dez por cento.

Actualmente e a esperança de vida ao nascer dos portugueses aumentou

18 anos no período. O relatório refere que esta evolução é uma das

mais impressionantes, sustentadas e sólidas do século XX. Ela só foi ultrapassada por um punhado de países que, para mais, estão agora alguns deles em graves dificuldades no Extremo Oriente. Portugal, pelo contrário, é membro activo e empenhado da União Europeia, com grande estabilidade democrática e solidez institucional. Segundo a FRZ, o nosso país tem um dos processos de desenvolvimento mais bem sucedidos no

mundo actual. Mas, quando se olha para a estratégia económica

portuguesa, tudo parece ser ao contrário do que deveria ser. Segundo a Fundação, Portugal, com as políticas e orientações que seguiu nas últimas décadas, deveria agora estar na miséria. O nosso país não pode ser desenvolvido. Quais são os factores que, segundo os especialistas, criam um desenvolvimento equilibrado e saudável? Um dos mais importantes é, sem dúvida, a educação.

Ora Portugal tem, segundo o relatório, um sistema educativo horrível e que tem piorado com o tempo. O nível de formação dos portugueses é ridículo quando comparado com qualquer outro país sério. As crianças portuguesas revelam níveis de conhecimentos semelhante às de países

miseráveis. Há falta gritante de quadros qualificados. É evidente que,

com educação como esta, Portugal não pode ter tido o desenvolvimento que teve. Um outro elemento muito referido nas análises é a liberdade económica e a estabilidade institucional. Portugal tem,

tradicionalmente, um dos sectores públicos mais paternalista,

interventor e instável do mundo, segundo a FRZ. Desde o "condicionamento industrial" salazarista às negociações com grupos económicos actuais,

as empresas portuguesas vivem num clima de intensa discricionariedade,

manipulação, burocracia e clientelismo. O sistema fiscal português é injusto, paralisante e está em crescimento explosivo. A regulamentação económica é arbitrária, omnipresente e bloqueante.

É óbvio que, com autoridades económicas deste calibre, diz o relatório, o crescimento português tinha de estar irremediavelmente condenado desde o início. O estudo da Fundação continua o rol de aselhices, deficiências e incapacidades da nossa economia. Da falta de

sentido de mercado dos empresários e gestores à reduzida integração

externa das empresas; da paralisia do sistema judicial à inoperância financeira; do sistema arcaico de distribuição à ausência de investigação em tecnologias. Em todos estes casos, e em muitos outros, a conclusão óbvia é sempre a mesma: Portugal não pode ser um país em forte desenvolvimento.

Os cientistas da Fundação não escondem a sua perplexidade. Citando as próprias palavras do texto: "Como conseguiu Portugal, no meio de tanta

asneira, tolice e desperdício, um tal nível de desenvolvimento? A

resposta, simples, é que ninguém sabe.

Há anos que os intelectuais portugueses têm dito que o País está a ir por mau caminho. E estão carregados de razão. Só que, todos os anos, o País cresce mais um bocadinho." A única explicação adiantada pelo texto, mas que não é satisfatória, é a incrível capacidade de improvisação, engenho e "desenrascanço" do povo português. "No meio de

condições que, para qualquer outra sociedade, criariam o desastre, os

portugueses conseguem desembrulhar-se de forma incrível e inexplicável." O texto termina dizendo:

"O que este povo não faria se tivesse uma estratégia certa?".

• • • • • • • • • • end of copy********

Um abraço,

Carlos Cunha carlosfcgcunha@netcabo.pt Lisboa, Portugal 81.84.162.66 (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nomination

I thank you for your kind nomination. I am honored that I would even be noticed. However, I am just coming off a 3-day block for edit-warring at Children of Men, and even though I think I have improved mightily in the year and a half I have been here, I think I still have a little further to go before I can be a useful administrator.
I am not saying no to your nomination, but rather to instead ask if you could help me become a user more worthy of being an admin. I would like to learn a lot more about the mechanics (within the limitations of my MacOS and compatible browsers), as well as how to how to deal with especially troublesome users. I have recently been offered some very good advice on how to deal with these type of folk, and it rather brings other lessons into perspective. I think I could be ready by the end of this summer. This gives time for me to implement these new strategies and maybe look at the new admin school articles - all of which would make me not only a better admin, but a better all-around user. I think I should at least get an article up from a stub to an FA. Braveheart, Ibiza, James Kirk and The Blair Witch Project are currently the ones I am concentrating on at this time.
Any advice or guidance you wish to contribute to help me be a better user, I will gladly accept it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hey I was wondering if there was a RFCU filed on this user and if so where it is. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Dmcdevit verified that he is indeed a sock of User:Polscience. I went ahead and declined the unblock request. Also it appears that User:Alwer, User:Elkarotter, and User:Armat are all sockpuppets of his too (blocked). Tiptoety ^talk 15:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 20	12 May 2008	About the Signpost

Explicit sexual content draws fire	Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia
Foundation receives copyright claim from church	Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy
Update on Citizendium	Board candidacies open through May 22
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area	New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton"	News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 10:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I’m looking forward to those castle articles you and Giano will collaborate on! I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Burma dispute tag

User:Huaiwei won't stop. I believe he has broken the 3 revert rule, has he not? Beam 02:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Full-protection for: "Copt", "Coptic flag" & "Template:Copts"

Hello, there. Thanks for responding to my request for page protection. As I see it, I only rv-ed those edits as it started from an anonymous user who did not properly discuss or explain their edits. I would just like to know how you consider my part in that "edit war". Can you please elaborate a little more? Thanks :) ~ Troy (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can you please change the protection level of "Coptic flag" to semi-protection ? we're discussing changes on the talk page already, and only IPs are edit warring there. George (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Declined The other two articles have shown that registered users would side with one of the warring IPs. Full protection is the standard measure against edit wars. Preventing one side from editing while allowing the other one to is against the protection policy. Húsönd 15:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

But, I've reduced the full protection to expire in 2 days. Húsönd 15:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, (BTW you didn't answer User:Troy 07 and I didn't mean to say you should prevent one side from editing while allowing the other) George (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The Awareness Center

Thank you. David in DC (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the great work

Just dropping by wishing you to keep up the extremely great work and hopefully you can keep it up for a while yet! You have done a marvelous job looking at your barnstars and i trust my fellow wikipedians. I came by your page through PPG and saw that since you were the one that first 'founded' her with the admin nom. i thought i'd give you a shout because you deserve it. She really is a special talent on wikipedia just like so many others. Its great that you continue to help the project and have the dedication and commitment after this period of time where some users sometimes leave because of the project and it makes you wonder. They say about the admins and the vandals and they basically give up and its a shame. Users some and go but hopefully someone like you can stay for a very long time. Thanks, all the best Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 13:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Quake 4: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Okay, that was stupid of me, I didn't realise you're an admin. Anyways, I just noticed that you hadn't warned vandals after a few reverts recently, and got a little trigger happy with the templates myself. Happy vandal bashing. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Threats

Don't threaten me. I'd like an apology to be honest. Beam 03:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So, instead of an apology, you ban me? Really? Beam 13:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow! Because Rudget is on vacation, you think you can get away with this? You think because I have to show your personal bias against me again, that I won't do it? I will go dig out Rudget's archive and I will find an admin willing to listen. You won't get away with this Husond. And when Rudget gets back, I wouldn't want to be you. Beam 14:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I see the aformentioned has been blocked. I'll monitor the situation from then on. Rudget (Help?) 16:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the rv on my talk page! Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 14:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Move

Hi! You mention a few things about the Burma/Myanmar move.

1. Your decision is overrunning process. – If the process it to list it on WP:RM and wait for a poll, then yes, I have gone against that standard process. However Wikipedia policy does allow me to do exactly the contrary: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I have invoked the policy to bypass red-tape.
2. ..following a consensual move proposal – How would one determine a consensus? Would you use a poll or count the number of editors participating in the discussion? This needs to be determined. I have stated my rationale behind the move citing a clear and unambigious wikipedia policy.
3. that the closure of October's move proposal to Burma was inadequate – It would be interesting to note that no unambigious wikipedia policies were cited when the page was moved from Myanmar to Burma in October, and yet the pro-Myanmar lobby needs to come up with a majority support to overturn the decision. Would this be fair call? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think I have lowered my credibility but a decision was made. You make it sound as if I have made the move on my own without listening in to people's opinions. Several editors have made very valid points over the implementation of consensus. For example, you mention that IAR doesn't certainly mean that one user may do whatever he thinks it's better for the project. I differ. I have quoted several arguments on both sides, and have presented it in my decision. So to state that I have not listened in to concerns is a bit of a long statement to make. There were valid points on both sides of the argument, the pro-Burma lobby making a strong pitch through RegentPark. However the pro-Myanmar lobby had a much objective and varied reasoning to make that cannot be overlooked. If you think that's false, please go through the listed points.

About the ANI. As what is listed on ANI, that is not the place to cover administrative actions over a closure of a move. ANI requires the intervention of administrators over several matters, not to report admins over procedures that require debate. That said, there is no evidence to implicate the closing admin for any wikipedia misconduct. The debate can continue.

You mention: Move proposals, just like any other poll-like discussions, are closed according to the closer admin's discretion. Yet you see my move as bad judgement when WP:RM has stated that I am not obliged to list it there. What do you see so bad of my judgement? Could you please check and see the case I have presented? I have presented my findings objectively.

I have not invoked the IAR to change the name on whim. Rather I invoked it to get past the quagmire-like state where to stall proceedings, you need to get all your chums on board supporting you, reasoning be dammed. Look at some of the comments: "I have not heard of the new name, so keep" Is this a valid reasoning?

Please do keep in mind that several people who did comment that there should be a name change. Nobody wants to be bold due to the lengthy process involved not to mention a given flack for effecting a controversial move. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I am wheel warring with anyone. For one, I am not overturning another admin's action, rather using the present-day community input to effect a name change. Secondly, the discussion was not hidden in some remote corner, rather it was advertised on WP:CBB. I'm sure CBB is a very prominent place to highlight a good debate if not better that WP:RM. When you say my judgement was not good, please provide an objective criteria for bad judgement. Evaluating the merits of the case and then making and citing a decision on the what the majority of the editors have made giving concrete example is not bad judgement. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your decision is overrunning process. - Sorry to butt in, but if you say that because it wasnt listed on WP:RM, then I'm afraid I disagree with you for the simple reason that wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. A move can be seen as being against process only if prior discussion of the move had been circumvented. It is discussion that is important and not process. Here both factions were invited and participated in long drawn discussions. Listing on WP:RM is not mandatory and I'm not sure it would have done anything to draw more editors. The discussions were well attended anyway and anybody with an opinion on the issue already seemed to have the page on their watchlists. The fact is that an admin listened to arguments of both sides and implemented a decision which in the end, was perfectly in tune with our policies. Sarvagnya 19:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but that doesn't imply that we are to run amok here. The process had a discussion, so it doesn't stand alone. Listing on WP:RM is pretty much mandatory for controversial moves. Arguments such as "discussions well attended and talk page likely on watchlist" are far-fetched. I attend the discussions. I have the page on my watchlist. And yet, I had no idea of any new discussion whatsoever. There was a process that was unilaterally overrun, that's all we need to know. Húsönd 19:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

firecrackers

They are illegal where I live anyway. I believe we should always respect the status-quo in these cases, the Portuguese may wish Olivenza was theirs and many people may wish that the current junta did not rule Myanmar but really the status-quo is respected in almost every case (the Falklands being my favourite example). Anyway Olivenza is off my watchlist, just too depressing getting into edit wars with you. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Be careful

You just reverted someone who blanked the page they created. That is not revert-able. You should have tagged it with CSD G7. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, geez, Im sorry. I didn't realize you were an admin. I apologize for being so condescending... _{WOW I need to pay attention....} Anywho, the page is Hakim M'Barek. 18:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounded sarcastic, it wasn't intended to be... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I meant was, I wouldn't have included the part about "that is not revert-able". J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:70.186.172.75's edits to Silberbauer

Forgive me if I'm missing out on something here, but what was wrong with this edit? At first, I thought that "Silberbauer" might have referred predominantly to the first Michael Silberbauer, and there would be a {{redirect}} tag on Michael Silberbauer linking to Karl Silberbauer, but this was not the case. I think the IP's edit might have been valid. Again, apologies if I'm missing out on something quite obvious. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Question -- ArbComm probation violated?

Hello. Unfortunately, inflammmatory off-topicness (EU wants to set up a puppet state in Serbia and/or enslave the Slavic people, etc.) has appeared in brand new guise on a Kosovo-related talk page: diff. I find it hard to assume good faith here: the editor in question blocks consensus on edits with unreasonable objections (two were just carried out despite that; but 2 more are blocked), in addition to carrying on outrageous and clearly biased commentary that gets' people's blood boiling. If this is not trolling, what is it? Loose lips? Best regards, --Mareklug ^talk 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What about this: diff2? Is putting me down as an immigrant (why would he know that I am one, if not through cyberstalking off my user page into internet and my personal pages? I make no use/mention of my "immigrancy" anywhere on Wikipedia.)? Are veiled ethnic-based putdowns within margin of this user's probation? After all, all this in reaction to pointing out obvious mistakes made in an edit. Kind regards, --Mareklug ^talk 03:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC) P.s. The snide remark about showing my ignorance off with lowercase "pristina" is clear trolling, no two words about it. I distinctly identified it as a common Latin word. This is simply disruptive, aggressive behavior, meant to goad. Best, --Mareklug ^talk 03:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just Curious

Just curious . . . bit what part of my edits to Silberbauer were unconstructive? 70.186.172.75 (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no prob man, I was just wondering. Take care. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Myanmar to Burma

I'm speechless. Actually speechless. I wasn't overly impressed by Nichalp moving the page without a new consensus gathering exercise, but his arguments were persuasive. As I was discussing another matter with him, I read your discussion. Given that you were suggesting he was wheel warring with User:Duja, I have trouble seeing your justification for a revert, especially seeing as you have been involved in determining this issue in the past. Were non-admins involved I would have protected the page against moves, but of course the page is already move protected and you're both admins. So short of referring this to ArbCom, I'm at a loss. Up until now, I was impressed by the calm discourse you'd started over Nichalp's unconventional action. There was no urgency here and this is the first time I have felt that you have used your admin rights inappropriately. WjBscribe 00:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Nichalp is a bureaucrat is irrelevant here. The fact that you are both admins is what is bothering me. Yes, Nichalp should have advertised his poll at WP:RM and yes, he should have asked an uninvolved admin to assess the result. I think you were right to question his handling of the matter. That said, I am sorry but you were involved in the debate and clearly had strong feelings about Nichalp's action. That made you the wrong person to decide whether it should be reversed. You are both people with sufficiently cool heads that you should be setting an example to others who may find themselves in similar positions. To say that the handling of this matter has been sub-optimal would be an understatement. WjBscribe 00:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And now yet another admin has moved the page, fantastic... WjBscribe 01:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

MJCdetroit isn't exactly an uninvolved admin [5]... WjBscribe 02:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain how this looks to me as someone uninvolved and without a strong opinion on the better title for the article:

• Nichalp has never it seems expressed an opinion on his preference as to title. He starts a poll based on the fact that users have been expressing dissatisfaction over the present title. That poll could have been advertised more widely. It also might have been better to ask someone else to close it as starting a poll does make it look as if one is unhappy with the status quo. Nichalp's actions aren't perfect but they are based on some fairly standard practices: having a consensus finding discussion on the talkpage, interpreting the consensus based on strength and number of arguments.
• You have been involved in this dispute before [6], including a controversy over the closing of a previous discussion on this subject [7]. You reversed Nichalp's action without seeking fresh consensus (you asked at ANI but didn't really wait for much of a response). Given that not seeking a sufficient consensus and wheel warring were the criticism you leveled at Nichalp, this looks rather hypocritical. I was relieved when you agreed to revert yourself, which showed you were sensitive to these issues and that you recognised that an uninvolved admin should take a look.
• MJCdetroit moves the page again and turns out to be yet another user who has expressed an opinion in favour of Burma as the title [8].

So far no one not already involved in the dispute has seen Nichalp's action as needing to be reverted immediately this very minute. I'm sorry but it's from such need for immediacy that wheel wars such as this are born. I hope this quick summary explains to you how I am seeing the debate and why I have found yours and MJCdetroit's conduct more problematic than Nichalp's (though I have voiced some concerns to him that situation could have been handled better [9]). It certainly has nothing to do with him being a bureaucrat, a detail you seem rather fixed upon. Bottom line of admin conduct for me is (a) don't reverse the actions of other admins without seeking consensus unless absolutely necessary and (b) don't use your tools in editorial disputes you are involved in. WjBscribe 02:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I just explained to you above why I find your conduct more problematic than Nichalp's. You were far more involved in this dispute than he was (even given the related discussion you pointed me to in May 2005) and a far less appropriate person to be moving that protected page. Also, the last move prior to Nichalp's had been months previously whereas your move was less than 24 hours after his and was directly intended to be a revert on a protected page (whereas Nichalp was acting based on what he believed to be a new consensus). I am sorry that my view takes you by surprise.

I hope everyone's energy can now be redirected into having a full debate about the appropriate title for this page so that this matter can be resolved with as much community input as possible, without any more use of admin tools until the debate concludes. WjBscribe 03:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I really do appreciate that you were willing to undo your move, which I recognise took a lot of doing. And I do realise that you think Nichalp's action were indefensible, I just don't see it that way. I don't think he got it completely right and I've commented to that effect, but I don't see an abuse of his tools.

Please take a step back though - your actions here are really uncharacteristic. You're using bold type to shout at me in an ANI thread and your comment "I'm looking forward to participate in your newly created debate once the article is moved back to Burma" suggests you will boycott any future consensus finding exercise unless you get your own way now. It isn't the attitude I've come to expect from someone I would like to think of helping other people reach consensus and compromise. I suspect quite a lot of users look to you as a role model - is this really the example you want to set of how we should behave when we get into an editorial dispute with another admin? Whilst I do appreciate that you think you're doing the right thing and respect that, your intransigence and unwillingness to see shades of grey in the actions of others is the reason we're butting heads so badly here... WjBscribe 03:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The time difference between us is only an hour - perhaps we would both benefit from some sleep. WjBscribe 04:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Burma/Myanmar

Hi Husond. I think you did the right thing. If the deterioration of the discussion on the talk page is an example, Nichalp's move clearly was not successful in ending the controversy. However, I do think that the discussion is pretty much not achieving anything and we should resolve the issue once and for all. I've initiated a survey on the talk page with the intention of trying to see what the true depth of feeling for either name is out there. Personally, I have so many ties with Burma that I know how complex the naming issue really is and can live with either name (though, I do strongly feel that Burma is more appropriate) so que sera sera as they say. Perhaps I'm being naive but do let me know what you think. Regards. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've taken this to AN/I given another admin who was involved has reverted your revert. Your comments would be appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's quite clear now how this is going to play out. I didn't know that Nichalp was a bureaucrat - can't buck the system, I suppose. FWIW, I think your initial revert was proper. Thanks for your support! --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 17:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAR nomination of Surtsey

I have nominated Surtsey because it does not seem to meet the featured articled criteria 1.(c), 2.(c), and 4. It is quite short, and is not of comparable length to current FA's. It is very under-referenced, and some of them aren't in the {{cite web}} form at all, just in <ref> tags. I do not believe that this fits the FA criteria any longer. You are welcome to comment at the review. Dreamafter (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)