User talk:Haukurth/Archive2

For the heads-up. While my instinct tells me ð and þ should be allowed in article titles (and Ú and ß and the rest, dammit), I'm probably not qualified to cast a vote on Höðr. Apologies, but reason & academic seriousness seem to be winning the day even without my help. Cheers, –Hajor 23:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: on a related issue (Úbeda, the Weißenburgs), I'm not at all happy with this "often rendered in English..." parenthetical either, which is making a typoographical issue out to be an issue of orthography. Drawing far too much attention to itself. And I'm reluctant to offer alternative wordings when what I'd really like to see is its complete elimination. Oh, well. –Häðr

Instead of asserting that one version is English (and, by implication, the other one isn't), it might flow more easily to start out an article with "Großglockner or Grossglockner, with a height..." -- at the end of the day, as I understand, both renderings are acceptable in both English and German. But only for the ß: "Úbeda or Ubeda is a town..." -- that's just someone who's too lazy or too inept to put a diacrit on a capital U. I had a read through Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) last night, but it just made me dizzy. Cheers, –Hajor 11:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Talk:Ubeda now has 45 times more words than its article, and Lucky 6.9 just reverted the bold anon to my compromise wording (not a wording I'd ever fight to the death over, but offered as a compromise). Interesting times... –Hajor 21:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for letting me know about those. Let me know if there's a vote on moving Ubeda back to Úbeda. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have supported a move of the article Skånska over at Talk:Skånska#Requested move that is not compatible with the concept of NPOV and general guidelines over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages. I would appreciate if you'd read the objection I've posted and reconsider your vote.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You keep using the phrase ASCII but as Noel pointed out in an earlier discussion: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Archive 1#Time to discard this policy)

Look at Wurttemberg, Riksdag, Goering, Tweede Kamer, Zurich (that's one's particularly ludicrous - walk up to the average person on the street in Auckland or New York or Sydney or London or Toronto etc and ask them to write "Zurich" on a piece of paper [so keyboards don't come into it] and they'll write "Zurich", not "Zürich"), etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Using the term ASCII makes it a technical argument not the cultural one that it really is. That is not to say that technical issues do not come into it (but few today care that shift and control are bitmaps 0x41 "A" + 0x20 is 0x61 "a" or -0x40 gives "^A"). When programming in Germany or Switzerland, I always ask for an American or British keyboard so that the Hex 0x21 to x0x2F characters are easily accessible, which of course means that German characters are then not easily available.

In summary please use the term "26 letters of the (basic) English Alphabet" or something simlar rather than ASCII as its more neutral and not everyone knows or cares what ASCII is. Philip Baird Shearer 14:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yea. But if you do that you can drop the word basic. Philip Baird Shearer

Thanks Haukurth for your response to CDThieme :).--Wiglaf 13:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've made the template {{Foreignchar}}, and applied it to Großglockner already. I expect the wording can be improved over time, but I think it captures the essence of what we're trying to say. I have also announced it at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). --Stemonitis 07:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel sucker punched. See attempted move of William I of England for Napoleon! See Talk:3rd Belorussian Front for three spellings in two languages for Belorussian, but agreed that it is "Belorussian Front" because of the two words used together to describe an entity known in military history as "1st Belorussian Front" etc. But this does annoy me: Wuerzburg radar for a move just "because the town is spelt Würzburg" (sound familiar?) and justified because the foreign char template is available, but in fact used in combination it is similar to, but not as clear cut as, "Belorussian Front". Which is why I think we should adopt rules similar to AE CE for these disputes. It would at least encourage people to write articles instead of messing around like this--Philip Baird Shearer 14:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand I think that we should try to be consistent in using or not using diacritics in German/Spanish/etc. city names.

Common English usage ;-O --14:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on my RfA; I really appreciate it! I will do my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, Hermione1980 23:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haukurth, thanks for your support on my RFA. I very much appreciate it. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to ask. See you around! —thames 18:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it, because the majority, if not nearly all other articles in Wikipedia have the article's title as the first word in the introduction, which makes a lot of sense. Mark 09:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, so the reword was not so good, but I tried to fix it so the title name is first. I really don't feel like getting an account, I don't think I really need it. BTW my IP address is always 203.164.18x.xxx, so you can count on that anyone using this IP is me (chance of 99%). Mark 09:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Haukurth, I think the time has come to ask you whether you would like to be nominated for admin. Write me back and tell me what you think.--Wiglaf 09:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I will wait a few days :-).--Wiglaf 03:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you are nominated. You apparently have to answer the questions before I can post you on the main page. Good luck!--Wiglaf 20:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can I nominate you for adminship? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not reply before because I have been considering the pros and cons. On balance thought I would be pleased if you would, and thank you for asking me. 17:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

hello there, terribly sorry to disturb you with this topic, but there is a new vote Talk:Weissenburg in Bayern on finally renaming it to Weißenburg in Bayern and since you have shown previous interested, I just thought I'd let you know what is going on... with kind regards. Gryffindor 22:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Haukur Þorgeirsson, there have been edits made to the "Cool" article that I believe remedy most of your concerns. There is a debate right now concernng chart formatting right now resulting in one camp of voters objecting if the charts go one way and the other camp objecting to the article if the article stays the way it is. As this is an unresolved matter that will probably not be resolved due to opposition on both sides, would you consider changing your vote to support if other concerns have been met? OmegaWikipedia 06:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I can't explain it, I don't even remember saying that for my vote, I really don't. I remember all of my other votes, I read over the users and took the time, but I really don't remember yours. I realized, I just did it a little while ago. I've done my reasearch on you and have found nothing really at fault. I apologize, I don't know what's going on in my head. Private Butcher 21:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a great admirer of your work and I hope to work with you on Norse-related articles in the future, but I had to change my vote to oppose over the Stormfront incident. I would be happy to discuss the issue with you if you wish. --Briangotts (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the Norse mythology articles, your levelheadedness over the "A" affair is the one thing that truly stands out about you on Wikipedia after months. I admired the way you were so patient with the people making rash judgements and personal attacks on the editors against blocking him, while still maintaining a very fair and sensible approach to the issue. To me, it means you're going to take a fair, sensible and patient approach to the adminship. I truly hope the nomination is successful. Donama 04:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with your RFA. I have never read a Norse Mythology article, but it's good to know you're making them worth reading when I decide to read one. I guess I'm watching RFA closely at the moment, and noticed several excellent contributors being torn to shreds over single incidents incidental to their ability to be good administrators. You sound like a thoroughly well-balanced person able to act objectively. Congratulations on not losing your temper while responding to comments. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad your nomination failed, maybe in a couple of months? Better luck next time, --Sn0wflake 23:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very helpful if you left the article Úbeda alone. I don't want to protect it again, but if you continue to revert I shall have to. You have not done anything wrong, but your actions fuel the vandal. --Gareth Hughes 16:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand how we got the current edit history. I thought my two edits had been consecutive and I didn't get an edit conflict. Presumably I just didn't notice I was editing Kolokol's version. In any case the two edits I've made today didn't revert anything - I just reworded the parenthetical remark a bit and added information about who those notable people were. But I understand your concerns and I'll keep them in mind. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As you know, your RFA bid did not receive the required level of support and I had to fail it. This does not mean that you cannot be an admin, you can try again some other time and reflect on what went wrong in this RFA. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I thought the tally was correct there, though I did count all the support/oppose votes. Lots of scrolling and reading to do, plus its late my time. No, I considered all votes even though some came in after your nomination expired. It doesn't make a difference as the overall figure is nearly the same. I have updated your tally. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

During this summer's conflict, I strongly questioned your (expressions of) goodfaith because I felt you were not sensitive enough with the ability of knowing when the time has come to restate your position and acknowlede overwhelming consensus along with strong feelings. I did not, though, begin my oppose vote with the understanding that this would be repeated, but it was (with some crucial stimuli that I'm uncertain you should be so thankful to). Essentially, it was a matter of èxceśs and wildfire conflict ensuing and perpetuating therefrom. Upon your next(?) RfA, I now intend to oppose comment on the same likely along similar grounds. This note simply serves as an observation that, in such an event, limiting yours and those who favour your position in that incident, to brief (posssibly singular) statements, will likely prove in your best interests. I apologize that this isn't, at this point, an attempt at dialogue. Feel free to delete it if you find it to be in bad form (in the case it is, or you find it to be that, that is indavertant). And to go along with my main point (excess), I'm requesting you refrain from responding to this note. Thank you for reading & reflecting. El_C 20:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It saddens me that after all this you still think that I would consider deleting a comment made by you to my talk page. I will, I apologize, not refrain from responding to it, though, and I hope you'll understand that.

I am thankful and indebted to Matt for his extensive support throughout my RFA. He made great efforts, one might even say a sacrifice, on my behalf by participating. Whether or not his efforts ultimately made my RFA likelier to succeed is irrelevant to the feeling of gratitude I bear him. It was selfish of me to contact him with this to begin with and I did him a great disservice by doing so. This only increases the debt I owe him.

I'm sorry he made the comment that distressed you so. It was unpleasant and not helpful. I appeal to your good judgment and the spirit of your advice here not to extend this affair any further than you need to. I'm sure that Matt said this in haste and judging by his past willingness to apologize for such things I hope that both of you will be able to put this affair behind you and concentrate on working happily in your respective fields.

You're probably right that less attempts at dialogue with those who voted to strongly oppose my nomination might have served me better. I honestly and, I freely admit, naively, thought that your and Ian's opposition was based, at least to some extent, on a misunderstanding of my positions. I hoped that carefully clarifying my positions could be the beginning of a reconciliation with you. I feel only regret that this was not to be. I wish I had done better.

Only hours have passed since my RFA was closed and you have already told me here and now that you will oppose any possible future RFA for me, apparently regardless of where in the future it might lie or whatever I might do or say in the meantime. But even regardless of that information another RFA is the last thing on my mind. As you probably already know, this RFA was not entirely a pleasant experience for me. The thought of a repeat-performance puts a sting into my stomach.

As I've said before I hope that you continue to edit Wikipedia usefully and tirelessly in the future as you have in the past. I wish you all the best. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact Matt has already unreservedly apologized for the comment. I can only hope that you accept that apology and that the matter can become a thing of the past. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that, if anythings, the acrimony between Mstt Crypto and myself has become greater rather than being ameliorated. I'll continue to try avoiding any contact with him, though 'tis rather difficult when faced with this. El_C 10:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that your RfA was unsuccesful and extremely saddened to see all the abuse you have had to suffer in connection with it. Most of what has been said against you has been extremely unfair but I will resist the temptation to single out any particular comments. Anyway, in my opinion they reflect much worse on those who wrote them than on you. I must commend you on how evenly you have taken all of this, I can only imagine how difficult it has been. I am a great admirer of your work here and you have been very helpful to me in my first steps on Wikipedia. I know that you would have made a great admin, sadly it was not to be.

Keep up the good work

Stefán Ingi (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. While the Stormfront issue bothered me to an extent, I believe that you would show good judgement. I supported you, and I would do it again in the future. Keep up the good work.--Sean|Black

Haukur, as you must know, you deserved the adminship -- more than many other good, but not *exceptional*, editors who are awarded adminship and one admin who I noticed doesn't seem to have *any* idea of diplomacy or tolerance for opinion beyond his own narrow one. Appreciate your patience in the face of opposition and your dedication to Wikipedia regardless! Donama 00:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I think we can gather five or six simultaneous nominators for three months hence. - David Gerard 23:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Haukurth, as you could see during the votes most people think that you will make a great admin. Wait a few months and then reapply.--Wiglaf 12:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A good start, I'll be watching developments with interest (if I had the material I'd spin off Woden again) GraemeLeggett 14:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, though I'm not sure I'll be able to devote much effort to the article in the near future. It's probably the most difficult Norse mythology article to write and getting it to good quality will be a great challenge. I've been going after lower hanging fruit and gaining lots of experience doing so. We can, though, try to fix some of the worst problems.

I agree with you on the necessity to maintain a distinction between the representation of the god in Norse mythology and the much more meager evidence we have of his West-Germanic forms. Ideally the article should be broken into sub-articles in some way, as you suggest. That's in the future, though, once there's enough carefully sourced material. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm approaching it from a different angle at the moment - trying to separate the neo-pagan elements from the ancient in the Anglo-Saxon religion article.GraemeLeggett 13:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sæll, ég svaraði á íslenska spjallinu mínu. --Bjarki 00:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for goodness' sake, my pleasure... I would have happily mounted a vigorous defense, but I felt too far out-of-the-loop of the "controversy" to be able to speak with any certainty. As best I can tell, though, this is something for which you should be very proud. There are about seven billion things in life more important than WP adminship -- one of the most important in the world is freedom of expression, which is meaningless if it applies only to "likeable" views. A "lost" nomination has secured you great honor as a hero for speech, so it is not "lost" at all. I don't know if your adversaries (some of whom I do understand) will ever allow you to take up the rollback button, but you can count on my support next time also.

One other note -- I wasn't sure, but there seemed to some innuendo from your less-noble opponents that your love of Norse mythology made you suspect as one of the evil ones. As a black man who loves Wagner's music, I personally found that notion simultaneously disgusting, tragic, and funny! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 01:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. The "controversy" by now consists of such a large corpus of posts that I doubt anyone coming to it will make heads or tails of it :) And apparently, as is human nature, people from different sides of the debate seem to have somewhat different recollections of the affair.

While it's true that to some people Norse mythology, like the great music of Wagner, is "tainted" I just can't believe anyone saw a connection there. At least I didn't read anything, even in the most vitriolic criticism of me, as innuendo in that direction.

Thank you again and keep up the good work. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Wow. Didn't see that coming at all. Let me buy you a beer. Better luck next time, ok? –Hajor 01:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I didn't quite see it coming either :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was depressing and infuriating in the extreme--enough to make me think seriously about quitting WP (yours along with two other recent RFAs that were derailed by things that both had nothing to do with adminship and also made me admire the candidate more). However, your message on my talk page was whimsical and refreshing, which I think speaks very well for you, Haukur. Chick Bowen 02:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch. I wish I'd paid better attention to other issues and been less wrapped up in my own. I'm glad you decided to stay on - that's what I decided too, after receiving supportive comments like yours :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my nomination till the end. 'Roger' is 'Hróðgeirr' in Old Norse. Don't know about that 'd' at the end, though :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can empathize, I also was rejected for my RfA. I was pissed for a couple of days, then I decided that it wasn't that important. I also decided to take some of what was said as constructive critisism, and try to learn from it. And some of it was baloney. Of course, your situation is different than mine. I would recomend that your wait a few months and try again. I certainly will support you then. (BTW the "d" is the first letter of my last name) --Rogerd 02:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would have supported your RFA, based on your contributions and your answers to the questions. You give absolutely no reason to think that you'd abuse admin options. I'd be honored to nominate you for a retry whenever you feel you're ready. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, but I'm quite sorry that your nomination failed. I will gladly support you next time, as well. Best of luck. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 04:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free speech is often a very tough position to defend. Better luck next time. Let me know if you ever need anything. —thames 20:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What bothers me is that this wasn't a situation where reasonable people could disagree. Your one of the very best wikipedians (the best I can think of, actually), someone who writes wikipedia articles which are better than what can be found elsewhere. I used Lóðurr as a justification to my professor as to why wikipedia should exist, and be given a shred of credibility. Hrafnkels saga is another example of something that just can't be found on other encyclopedias.

As monstrous as some may have found your request for administrative review and intellectual rigour in the case of this one "nazi" (I think in other times and places this word for an unpopular minority could be traded for "communist" or "jew"), no one was ever able to show any credible basis for assuming you would misuse the status of adminship. Quite the opposite.

I am frankly disgusted that a project i have so long volunteered for allows such partisans a monopoly on the RFA process. In the end, it is RFA that needs to be changed, not your willingness to fight fallacious reasoning and crowd psychology. Thank you for all you have done, Sam Spade 16:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the flattery. As for reforming RFA - and I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere - it occurs me that opposition votes should, in general, be actionable. I think that votes like "oppose, will support after one more month of good edits" or "oppose, will support if user improves her use of edit summaries" or what have you, probably aren't that hard to take. This is the way WP:FAC works and that's why I don't hesitate to vote "oppose" there, knowing that people will probably improve the article with my comments and then I can change my vote to "support". No hurt feelings. I'm much more hesitant to vote "oppose" on WP:FPC because there usually isn't that much that can be done to improve a photograph and it's not fun to have something one's proud of trashed. But we can at least try to give some tips for the photographer to use in her next attempt. The votes on WP:RFA are the most delicate of all because there we are voting about an actual person. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. People are often being quite explicit about opposing simply because they disagree with the candidate about this or that issue, and it has nothing at all to do with whether a person can be trusted with admin powers. I would suggest all votes should be both "actionable" and based on relevant criteria. — Matt Crypto 12:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, User:Matt Crypto, most solemly award you the Matt Crypto Enigma Rotor Award for Being an OK Bloke (pictured) for all the RfAr stuff. OK, so I've never really understood barnstars, but this is my best effort ;-) — Matt Crypto 12:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What happened, you didn't get to be administrator, how is that possible? You are overqualified! i bet that is in revenge because people speak their minds, how sad... yes, the battle with the poor "ß" is really annoying. I can't read those funky nordic symbols but I support using them because this is an encyclopedia after all, and so i'll just learn something new when clicking on that article. Well better luck next time... Gryffindor 18:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I very much hope that you won't let the RfA put you off editing Wikipedia. For my part (and I know that this is true of most people who voted, on both sides) I regard you as a good editor and a genuine asset to the project; the doubts that people expressed were, while relevant to one aspect of adminship, completely irrelevant to our main business of creating a better encylopædia. One or two people supporting you want to whip this up into a drama to serve their political ends, and to enable them to attack those who voted against you, but I'm sure that you realise that all the hysterics and exaggeration are nonsense, best forgotten as soon as possible. I look forward to seeing your contributions continuing for a long time to come. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. I see that our views of what happened are not in every way identical but I won't add anything here. I, too, hope you continue to edit Wikipedia for a long time with the same vigor and enthusiasm which you have shown in the past. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, and I'll take your advice on-board concerning User pages. I ususally go back and check talk pages associated with IPs:203.164.1xx.xx and I found your message. I guess it's fine editing another User's page if it's constructive, otherwise it would be considered vandalism and just not cricket. Have a look at Lacrimosus's account, he has a vandalism count for his user page.

I think I'm a bit too lazy to get a User Account, even though I know it is very easy to do.

Also sorry to hear about your failed RfA, and I hope it doesn't discourage you from editing here. Just keep plugging away, and I'm sure those who opposed you will eventually come around to what I believe are your constructive edits, civility, etc. Always stay positive and never take this place too seriously, I try not too, but unfortunately sometimes I do and get involved in edit wars :( which are very unconstructive and a big waste of time.

Cheers, Mark 00:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Getting a user account takes literally about 10 seconds - you just have to type in a login name and a password and you're there. This would, I think, help you a lot here. Many people are skeptical of IP editors and automatically suspect them of making poor edits - you may, thus, be discriminated against. Having a stable account also means you can vote in polls that you're interested in and be sure you're vote is counted. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will take it under consideration and have a think about it, because I don't know how long I'll contribute to Wikipedia (I only appear a couple of days a week), and I think it a bit pointless creating an account then not coming back again. Concerning polls, your right my vote is never counted, but I'm OK with that and I feel that at least I've put my view forward. Mark 01:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a very mature attitude, Mark! Indeed the most important thing is often to express one's view, rather than have one's snout counted. There are thousands of accounts here already that people have created, used once or never and then left. Your caution is admirable but I think it is not needed here. And there are some nice things you can only do if you're logged in. And you can always go back to editing with an IP if you prefer. There's nothing wrong with that either. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 01:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know alot of those rarely used or not at all accounts are probably sock-puppets of other users. I was accused of being a sock-puppet once, because I chose not to have an account and held similar views to that of another user, but even if I did have an account I would have probably been acussed of sock-puppetry anyway. This is something that doesn't worry me anymore, like water off a duck's back :) Mark 01:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and sorry your Admin nomination didn't turn out better. I mentioned cliques in the debate there because I have encountered this type of behavior among a handful of the participants including the one who responded to my vote in a very rude manner. I'm not certain of the exact communications between them, but I am of the belief that a certain clique of editors was operating in tandem to sink your nomination. The number of persons involved is relatively small and certainly didn't include all who opposed you, but many of the main attackers on your nomination thread are involved. Without getting any more specific, I can say that I've encountered this same group before and have an arbitration case pending against some of their members. They do operate in coordination with each other, so I would not be surprised if they sent out backchannel emails or other communications targetting your nomination for defeat. I know that they do this because of a similar incident a few months ago when I proposed a new Wikipedia policy guideline and announced it on the village pump - some suspected clique members made a coordinated attack that involved near simultaneous postings to my userpage, the village pump, and proposal discussions that were all in sync with each other and indicated that they had been planned and timed together. It's unfortunate that these types do this sort of covert thing on wikipedia, and one of the worst elements of it is that they stick up for their own under all circumstances - even when one of them misbehaves. I've seen these types excuse away flagrant violations of 3RR, misuse of page protection powers, revert warring, POV edits and just about everything else when one of their own is the offender. Rangerdude 00:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rangerdude supported my nomination and believes I was opposed, in part, by what he calls a "wiki-clique" (see his user page). Though I am grateful for his support I don't necessarily endorse his views. I haven't followed any of the past events he refers to and don't have any informed opinion on them. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 01:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm sorry to see that your nomination failed; the count looked close and I was thinking you might make it. Better luck next time—hopefully not too far off! Everyking 10:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for expressing your confidence in me at my recent Request for Adminship. The final result was 40/0/0, and my "superpowers" have now been activated. I look forward to helping out with the development of the encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk · contribs)

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite ^(talk) 04:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support on my RfA. If my RfA passes I will use my new abilities with the common interest in mind. I have asked Essjay and Celestianpower to mentor me for a bit until I have some more experience with the important aspects of being an administrator. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ] 03:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a chance! Thanks for the message. Everyking 09:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my RfA. It recently closed with final tally of 51/1/2. I sincerely appreciate it and I hope I can live up to your expectations. I will try my best to be a good administrator. If you ever need anything, just let me know. Thanks! -- Psy guy (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Hi, Haukur. Thanks for your vote of support on my nomination to become an administrator. I passed, and my floor rag has since been bestowed upon me. Please let me know if you need me to help with anything in particular! —BrianSmithson 16:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for visiting Ancient Greek pronunciation. We all know about Vox Graeca. Our problem is that User:Thrax disputes the relevance of this work although it is considered a standard text. In particular, Thrax tries to convince Wikipedia readers that Greek linguists as a whole share his opinion that the mediae were fricatives already in archaic times etc. What we would need is reference to Greek sources regarding the classical pronounciation of classical Attic Greek, in particular the consonants. Apart from scolarly works in Greek, this would also include contributions of Greek linguists in international scientific journals and at international conferences that cover the subject of classical Greek phonology. Andreas 20:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your input into Ancient Greek phonology. Of course, User:Thrax will cite Caragounis as a source for his claim that even Homeric sheep sounded "vee", as he always does. This article has to be entirely rewritten by an expert, and your help would be welcome. Before doing this, we would need some more evidence that Caragounis's hypothesis is not generally accepted, even not in Greece. When we have this, we could proceed to do seriously editing the article. Like with many other theories questioned by ideologists, this will probably need official arbitration, and we should be prepared for this. Andreas 14:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my "generosity", as a scientist I have little tolerance for poeple who distort hard scientific facts for ideological reasons, but if the scientific truth is not properly defended, there is danger that it goes down the drain. The trouble is that there are no scientific publications explicitly refuting Caragounis's article and book (who would bother?) Caragounis appears in the Science Citation Index several times, but ony his theological articles are cited. If you feel that the time has come to do a serious edit to the article, go ahaed. I myself am reluctant because I think I do not have enough expertise to do this in a scholarly fashion. Andreas 14:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been alerted to something. Though all the evidence clearly shows that Ivory Coast, not Cote d'Ivoire is what is used internationally in English, the vote claims otherwise. It turns out that most of those voting to use the less-used-in-English name as the article name are French speakers. I know French and English are linguistic rivals, but for speakers of French to seek to impose a name that is contrary to the MoS and the NCs, and contrary to world English users, is highly questionable behaviour. They may well use the French name, but the fact is that most English speakers, as the evidence shows clearly, don't. And on English WP it is the name used by English users, not that preferred by French speakers, that is relevant. User:Jtdirl 04:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I meant to put this in too. Re the evidence of usage: For example:

• The BBC page on the country uses Ivory Coast

• The BBC website shows
  • 1,281 for IC,
  • 78 for Côte d'Ivoire/Cote d'Ivoire (many of which go straight to IC).
• Reuters showed some references to IC, none for C'dI.
• ABC News (US) shows
  • 75 references to Ivory Coast, most of them actual ABC references.
  • C'dI got 45 references, most in French, the others an African news agency or Wikipedia.
• NBC News shows
  • 369 references to Ivory Coast
  • Côte d'Ivoire gets 4.
  • Cote d'Ivoire also gets 4.
• Sky News had
  • 11 references to IC,
  • Cote d'Ivoire has 0.
• South African television uses more IC that Cote 'd'Ivore. A search of the latter throws up articles that use either both or just Ivory Coast.
• The British and Foreign Office lists the country profile name as Ivory Coast. In the article, as Wikipedia does, it gives the official name as used by that state.
  • 54 links on its site link to Ivory Coast.
  • 52 link to Cote d'Ivoire; most of whom use Ivory Coast either first, with the French translation second or in brackets or as the headline. 54 use IC, all as the primary name.
• Time magazine shows
  • 259 links to Ivory Coast.
  • 2 links for Cote d'Ivoire, one of whom used Ivory Coast in the headline.
• The New York Times shows
  • 6341 links to Ivory Coast.
  • 16 to Cote d'Ivoire and variants.
• The Times of London shows
  • 349 for Ivory Coast.
  • 3 for variants of Cote d'Ivoire.
• The US Department of State lists
  • 1000 references to Ivory Coast, many of them documents from the 2000s.
  • 1000 references to Cote d'Ivoire. (This suggests that their search engine automatically lists either country. However an examination of documents — one speech by an Under Secretary is quoted in the discussion below — shows regular usage only of Ivory Coast, with Cote d'Ivoire occurring as expected primarily in formal diplomatic documents, and Ivory Coast in general discussions about the country. User:Jtdirl 05:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the ESA pic what do you mean by "this one can be essentially recreated under a free license." Sorry if I'm an image dummy--literally try and create the image from scratch?

Also wondering if you had a vote in general on the Planetary habitability page. Thanks, Marskell 16:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant that it's a diagram and someone could go and make a new diagram with essentially the same information (like Wikipedia's London Underground maps). This is fundamentally different from images taken on another world - there's no way we can recreate those. Wikipedia doesn't have any contributors on Titan. Maybe I'll give the article a closer look tonight. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia doesn't have any contributors on Titan." Do you have a source for that ;)? I'll assume we have sources galaxy-wide until our new article rate slows down.

Seriously, thanks for taking the time to go through the article. There are indeed some good Titan pics (and naturally more Mars pics) that could work, but I actually wanted more graphics versus on-the-planet pics to balance the page. I'm still hoping for a positive response to GFDL from ESA. God, you're right--our image policy is weird. I think it actually punishes people who do their homework--really easy to slap fair use and hope no one notices, but there's actually some legwork involved in contacting people directly and trying to get your tag right. Marskell 23:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns on WP:DPL about Solomon have been heeded. I've started a discussion about it at Talk:Solomon (just in case there are some objections). We will leave it for a few days, then probably carry out the redirection as you propose. I guess there's no point in doing link repair on Solomon anymore.--Commander Keane 20:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm doing this right. Thanks for your newcomer award. If I modify your comments on my talk page, will the system be smart enough to notify you that I have modified them so that we can have a discussion? I know you'll get a notification here if I write something...

Anyway, I tried to condense my thinking on the Linguistics and the Book of Mormon page. I'm glad someone appreciates it. I think that what I wrote should be included in the article, but I think I kinda screwed up the flow. It only makes sense to talk about "translation" problems if you accept that a) there were ever any plates, and b) that the plates were "translated" by normal means. I would argue against both of those assertions, although clearly that is not NPOV. I would like to rewrite that section to say something to the effect that "some say the plates never existed (and talk about that for a bit)... others say they were never translated (and talk about that for a bit)... but if you accept that the plates did exist and that they were translated, here are some problems with the translation..." It seems silly to talk about a translation of plates which arguably never existed in the first place and/or were not ever "translated" according to the common meaning of the word.

I will put some of these comments on my talk page too in case anyone comes by and sees what you wrote... or in case we have this discussion over there.

I took out some other guy's dorked-up HTML tags in his sig. I hope he forgives me. It was screwing up the rest of the page...

Jarom Smith 02:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page system is currently very clunky. If we want the record to show a coherent conversation and still be alerted everytime a new message is written we have to manually maintain the conversation in two places. I agree with you about the plates. A lot of Mormon pages currently implicitly assume that the BoM represents an ancient text - this could do with fixing. The Linguistics and the Book of Mormon part should, of course, specifically deal with the linguistic issue and not get bogged down in other aspects of the authenticity of the text beyond establishing the necessary context.

A script tidying up html was temporarily turned off - this revealed that many people had been sloppy in formatting their signatures :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to drop by and thank you for taking the time to respond to my RfA. I appreciate the comments and will certainly continue improving my community interaction. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring the text at Autobiography sales and chart positions. Everyking 19:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I happened to note your conversation with Snowspinner on the subject and went and looked at the deletion debate and the article itself. The information is clearly verifiable (and sourced!) and it seems completely natural to split this subject off from the main album article in this way. Call me an inclusionist if you like but I just can't see how blanking that article made Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Since the VfD did not produce a consensus for deleting I just went ahead and restored it.

I think you were wise in not wanting to do this yourself - it could easily have been used against you. Let me know if there are other edits which you'd like to see done but feel it's not prudent for you to do yourself. I'm not your puppet, of course, but if my judgment agrees with yours I'll happily go ahead. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the spelling correction. I learned something today!Gator (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Haukurth,

I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. It closed with the final tally of 57/0/0. I can only hope I can live up to the expectations that this wonderful community of ours demands from each of its administrators. If you ever need anything, please just let me know. Cheers! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, I'm partially Jewish.. :) But seriously, thanks for your kind words. It's really a comforting thought to know that there are people a tad sympathethic to me. And don't worry, what doesn't kill me... In fact I already learnt that there are people who do not see me at all, they simply see a single, stereotypical Pole, the arch-Pole consisting of some creatures that are so similar to each other that they can't even see we're not the same entity. I find it strange (and a tad funny as well) that there are people who opposed my candidacy simply because they got late for the RfA of the guy who nominated me and did not make it to express their objections there. But hey, it's nice that someone else noticed that. Thanks again. Halibutt 13:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The timing was bad with feelings running high over a particular editor. It's regrettable, though perhaps understandable, that this spilled over into your RfA. Better luck next time. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd move this here since it's more a reply to you than anything to do with Snowspinner. Yes, theoretically the tour article could be recreated, there are somewhat different circumstances now, since some people objected on the very tenuous grounds that the tour wasn't over yet...it would need to be recreated under a different name, since she's now doing a new tour, so the two have to be distinguished. Ashlee Simpson Autobiography tour, I suppose. Ideally I'd like for it to be undeleted, though, and then moved to the new title, so the old history is recovered, but I suppose that doesn't matter too much. Everyking 04:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea. I'll try to get around to writing an article for it in my userspace, then we can move it into the main namespace. I think it might be uncontroversial, actually, might either pass under the radar or tensions might have cooled to the extent that nobody will be interested in fighting about it. When I first wrote the deleted article, it was pretty unusual, maybe unique on Wikipedia, but now there are quite a number of similar tour articles—obviously there's a trend there, towards better and more detailed pop music coverage. Which is natural on Wikipedia, that things become more inclusionistic as more people come and want to write in more detail about the things that interest them. So I think as a general content issue, the whole thing has been decided by the community in favor of the inclusionist position I was pushing back then—it's just a question of restoring the specific content. Everyking 09:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I've now been made an administrator. I'll do my best not to let you down :) --Sherool (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Haukurth. I'd like to vote at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Norse mythology), but I'm a little unclear on a couple things: under this proposal, for example, would Thor stay where it is, but with a redirect from the 13th century names, or the other way around? Thanks.--Sean|Black 02:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. With that in mind, I can't fathom why some people think it's such a horrible idea. Count me in as a supporter.--Sean|Black 19:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I took part in the voting. It's more or less the same problem I had previously with Gene - his views on what is an English name and what is not are totally different than mine. Hence "Lech Walesa" is not an "English" name of Lech Wałęsa for me, while for him it would most probably be. Halibutt 14:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing special, really, I got used to it. In fact I find it even a tad comforting that someone's looking after me and considers my steps so important as to watch them closely :) Halibutt 14:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to what you wrote at your main page - it makes me sad. Hopefully you mean a wikibreak or wikivacations and not plan to abandon the ship just now. Come back and I will give you a cool as a cucumber award :) Halibutt 17:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quote:[[1]] "I'm slightly reluctant to change the wording while the voting is going on but this could do with some revision. I'm going to sleep on it."

Just let it ride. We can always write a new one later rather than complicate the existing proposal. That is my advice, anyway. :)

POSTSCRIPT edit: link to some relevant comments

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 12:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haukurth,

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! Regards, JoanneB 14:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haukurth,

I am now an administrator and would like to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was very surprised at the number of votes and amount of and kind comments that I gathered. I will do my best to use the blocking option with wisdom and restraint as you requested. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I mess up in the use of my new powers. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Haukurth. Could thu teach mig better islensku (I can't write thorn and eth on my keyboard)? Eg veit little, en eg gera ekki hinn declensions og cases. Eg veit about your website on Old NOrse before eg veit about Wikipedia! Eg found thath very interesting. Eg really liked hinn cartoons! 24.128.149.7 21:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the message. Good luck learning Icelandic :)

And if you want to contribute to Wikipedia I wish you good luck with that too.

One of the things I like to do here is to add Old Norse texts with English translations in parallel. See Bifröst and Lóðurr for examples. I think this is nice for people who know some Icelandic/Old Norse or are learning it. Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have one question for now; how do you pronounce au in ICelandic? I looked at the IPA pronunciation guide but did not understand how to pronounce it. 24.128.149.7 22:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no close English approximation. Do you know any French? Some other language? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know a bit of French pronunciation. I'll see if I know. 24.128.149.7 13:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Modern Icelandic 'au' is pronounced closely like the diphthong in the French word "feuille". - Haukur Þorgeirsson 13:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does that go for any French eu word? 24.128.149.7 13:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the trick is in what follows it. Let's try another word. Icelandic 'au' is pronounced similarly to the French word "œil". - Haukur Þorgeirsson 13:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the French pronunciation guide. So is it like e in "set" but with lips rounded as in English oo? Also, does Icelandic have a sound like English does in boy? 24.128.149.7 14:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's that sound followed by the semivowel often represented in English by the letter "y" - or the vowel often represented in English by the letters "ee". Icelandic does have the diphthong which occurs in English "boy" though it is relatively rare. It occurs, for example, in the word "bogi". But if you really want to learn some Icelandic pronunciation you'll need a local teacher, or at least some kit with pronunciation audio. - Haukur Þorgeirsson

Does the UK have Thanks giving like the US does? I doubt they do, but I just want to make sure. 24.128.149.7 14:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia talk page is not your one-stop shop for answers about everything :) But, no, I don't believe it is. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bugging you! I'm just very inquisative. 24.128.149.7 13:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]