User talk:Rhun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Rhun, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- SoothingR(pour) 10:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] TextMate introduction

No, I'm sorry. You're going to actually have to rewrite the whole sentence. Changing "simplicity and elegance" to "look and feel" destroys the flavor and meaning of the sentence, and makes it no longer suitable. I don't have a problem with something more "neutral", but you current change doesn't cut it. Please either put some actual thought in, or stop changing this. --jacobolus (t) 11:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

To be clearer, the point of adding a GUI is not to match "look and feel". It is much deeper than that. The point is that the GUI *is* simpler for users to navigate than a purely textual interface. This is well documented in HCI research, and if you like I can dig up studies about it. It's hardly controversial. "Elegance" is a bit harder to quantify, as it is very subjective, but again, if you like, I can give you dozens of quotes about the elegance of the Macintosh, especially as compared to textual interfaces. --jacobolus (t) 11:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Srbosjek

You didn't do the AfD properly. If you want to create a new deletion discussion but an older one already exists, create a new AfD page called something like "Srbosjek (2)", you don't reopen the old discussion. I fixed this for you. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing other people comments

Please be aware that removing other people comments is a serious offence at wikipedia. It is considered serious vandalism. Terse 14:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

You have been reported at vandalism in progress page. You cannot remove comments from the discussion page. Terse 15:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please be aware of the 3 revert rule WP:3RR - you are not allowed to make more than 3 reverts in any 24h period. Consider yourself warned. Hvarako 13:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The same rule applies for you, since there are only we two reverting hence and forth. --Rhun 14:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 12 hour block

You have been blocked for 12 hours for breaching the 3 revert rule on Srbosjek. Neil ム 10:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to work constructively

Hi, I see that we are at danger of starting an edit war. While I disagree with many of your points, I feel, reviewing your contributions, that you generally are willing to cooperate for the benefit of the article, and work together on adressing the issues appropriately. Also, while I would say that your efforts are in good faith (though sometimes I have doubts weather it is really so), I think that more likely you do not really understand some of the wikipedia policies. They are designed precisely so that people of opposing views can agree on the article content, in a way that would present fairly the information available - that is in my opinion purpose of NOR, NPOV and other policies. Excluding links just because you might object to the opinions or POV there is not what is justified by those policies - on the contrary, any relevant opinion, no matter weather you agree with it or not, is to be presented. For the Jared Israel, I added his link because of the naming issue. However, since you do not rise this any more, it is not so important, but I would disagree the basis for exclusion. If you said that Jared's article is not talking that much about Srbosjek etc, we might discuss that, but just disagreeing with Jareds position is not a valid basis for exclusion. As for Bulajic, he is absolutely unavoidable as his opinions are really very weihty for the Serbian side. Bulajic is no nazi or whatever you like to call him, but that is really beside the point. What matters is that he presents an important POV that, just by virtue of being widespread, has to be presented (now he is just in external links which is a bare minimum; note that he is not used as a source at all). For the sources, we discussed that at lenght and I think that if you read the policies carefully, you will realise that the sources are adequatly provided. Perhaps there are other sources and it would be good if someone added them, but having just one source, that is reliable, should be enough for inclusion. Hvarako 02:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Srbosjek and books

We can't trust any book in article. For example I will take article Ivo Andrić. Puppet of user:Velebit (which has added this books) is now deleting statement confirmed by multiple internet sources and changing them with different statement "confirmed" by his obscure books. Sorry but we can't trust any word which is coming from user:Velebit.--Rjecina (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)