User talk:Belorn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Richard Stallman[edit]

I strongly agree with your removal of that "information" from the Richard Stallman article, but I don't think that WP:SPS actually applied here. I reckon that the issue was just a plain neutral point of view violation. --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree on that WP:NPOV was an issue, but I thought it was simply easier to mark it down as RS issue instead of both a NPOV and RS issue. Having a whole section of criticism, in a article about a living person, being sourced only by blogs, is simply a bad edit and should be removed without any further procedure. I think when it comes to matter of polarizing issues, there is always plentiful of blogs giving strong opinions in every possible direction. It is thus important to not let those bleed over onto Wikipedia.Belorn (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are completely correct, WP:SPS does say "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." I was just being stupid Facepalm Facepalm.
Sorry if I came across as being a bit over judgmental as there was no flaw whatsoever in your reasoning. --Mrmatiko (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, only glad that there is people watching over those articles :).Belorn (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chemical patent[edit]

I replied on the talk page. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I dont think you should have added the advert, its not written as a bias opinion and i think its pretty neutral. Other then that, i personally don't like that you changed my writing but whatever, its Wikipedia, that should be expected. Atleast you improved it and so far, only you decided to do whats right then act bias towards me, my account, and my posts so thank you, i appreciate that.--Nevoexpo (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The advert was there because I did the changes I did just before getting some sleep, and I did not feel it was enough of a rewrite to change the tone of the article to neutral. I removed the advert tag now after a additional edit, because at this point what should be important is adding what independent third-party source has to say on the subjectBelorn (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have given this user a final warning. Open a thread at WP:ANI if this continues.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement‎[edit]


I think you mean unprotecting ;)? Sure, you're welcome! :)

Merry Christmas,

The Helpful One 18:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In regards to this edit, I have a WRT54G2, so I'll try to find out specifically what firmware they use, and get a source for it. If I can't, I'll leave a comment on the talk page. Cheers, SudoGhost 00:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found one, added it here, hope that was what you were looking for. Take care. - 00:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I will update the WRT54G article also. Belorn (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright infringement[edit]

I took your lead, and removed the offending statement implying copyright holders were trolls. It also added nothing to the article. I trust this is acceptable to you? MrZoolook (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

normally, you do not remove old comments like that, but rather archive it. The reason I undid your comment was to not encurrage more unconstructive comments that would reply to your comment. With old unconstructive comments you want archive them to make space for constructive comments, but not deleting them as to preserve the talk history. A possibility would had been to archive your comment along with the old ones, but it strongly suggested in the policy to not archive new comments. I will do a archiving now, just need to figure out how to do it... and Done.Belorn (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Normally, blatantly non-constructive viewpoints are discouraged long before they are considered 'old enough to archive'. MrZoolook (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree, had I been watching the article back then, the comment would be long gone :). Belorn (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And after having slept on it, and put a totally rubbish day behind me, I apologise for being so moody regarding the edits. Not making excuses but it was a pretty bad day for me, and getting an e-mail saying it had been reverted SECONDS after going to bed on my HTC kinda was the straw that broke the camel's back. I had to turn my computer back on to read the e-mail even :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrZoolook (talkcontribs) 00:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries. In the end, it got me to move all that crappy old comments into the archive. Belorn (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragga (talkcontribs) 16:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

possibly semantics?[edit]

Hi Belorn, I'm wording my answers carefully on that talk page so that we don't run into a circumstance of an advocacy rag (LGBT magazine) being used as a one off for a RS. We need to see mainstream sources in plurality to feel comfortable about making such a switch. In view of that, I think my application of UNDUE is correct. I saw your statement as potentially giving them fuel for the fire - To paraphrase, (What?! you said that we only needed one!). I don't want them thinking that we are moving the goal posts. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...hehe, I see one of my heros mentioned above.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand the caution you advice, and on a communication level I think my writing could have been written more clearly to not give the impression of moving the goal post. I did a rewrite to hopefully clarify things. Belorn (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice Comment.[edit]

Hey, I saw your comments and liked them very much. However, consider the following modification in this diff

"do not take offensive to those images." --> "do not take offense to those images".

Thank you for your truly logical comments. Brendon is here 21:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the support, and spelling fix :). Thankfully, the RFC will end in a few days and there will be a decision made. Currently I mostly watching out for people trying to void and disqualify other people arguments. Its bad style, and clear violation of good-faith, and should be removed when it first started. Keep up your own good work. All the person directed comments can be disheartening, but I hope you keep going and don't stop :). Belorn (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, somebody (Matt lewis) called you a "moron", could you believe it? And also according to that user, your opinions are odious. hahahaha!!! Brendon is here 21:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
), One has to take discussions on WP with a smile, or one would surely go insane. Belorn (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you think?[edit]

What do you think of this?? We (new questions and I) need you there. What's up? Brendon is here 20:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need help![edit]

Can I do anything to report an User who is harassing me on my user_talk page (just in case)? Any help would be truly appreciated. Brendon is here 13:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing with harassment has a suggested path to take. At this point, I would wait and see, alternative delete the conversation. If Griswaldo do not drop it, send a note to the volunteer response team or one of the WP:AMDB. Last, I would avoid addressing the user in conversation. I do not mean you shouldn't respond to arguments on the RFC, just avoid addressing Griswaldo, and focus on the arguments and subject matter. *Update*. Do not try to confront Griswaldo if you are follow the above mentioned guide. if are you are letting the volunteer response team handle the issue, the best thing you can do is simply ignore or delete Griswaldo comments on your talk page. Belorn (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm getting wikihounded. I visited WP:DWH (as you told me to) and started a new discussion in "dispute resolution" with a goal to resolve the dispute but as you might see, it yielded no positive result and I'm being wikihounded by Griswaldo.

Griswaldo is making bad-faith accusations one after another. User:ChrisGualtieri and User:New questions also tried to mediate an agreement between us. But no help.

Now User:Balloonman has also joined with User:Griswaldo in libeling me with all sorts of untrue allegations based on nothing more than their lofty presumption that I'm a "duck" (which in itself is a breach of WP:CIVIL as well as WP:AGF). I've tried to clarify my stance but they are fully uninterested in listening to me. Can you tell me what to do? (If you prefer to remain dissociated from all these issues, I will understand but please say so yourself)

Peace! Brendon is here 15:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added a comment to the Wikiquette assistance. If they keep ignoring the advice given there, then the WP:Arbitration Committee would be your next step to get a stop to this. I do suggest trying to keep responses to Griswaldo and Balloonman to a minimum, but I understand the difficulty in avoiding posting in defense when one is being attacking. As for my own position in all this, I have very limited time. I also try to stay third-party as my goal is mostly limited in trying to stop the uncivility in all of this. You should not be under attack day in day out on different pages. If Griswaldo is serious in his concerns, he should use the tools available. Posting accusations on different talks, articles and user pages, while actively ignore the advices of others to follow correct policy guidelines is unacceptable and if Griswaldo don't stop he should get blocked. Belorn (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I now feel like submitting my own username to WP:SPI (pun intended) and get it over with. No but seriously, as it seems that's the only way to end this frustrating chain of accusations and wiki-hounding (I apologize in advance if this was not Griswaldo's intention, only time will tell what he really wants). Brendon is here 23:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're wrong[edit]

You're wrong. The best way to handle human behavior is to go to people personally and give them a chance to explain that behavior before reaching for an institutional solution. It is not in any way inappropriate to address people's behavior to them on their talk pages. I'm not addressing that behavior at the RfC, which would indeed be inappropriate and off topic if I were. So you're wrong there too. Something awfully fishy is going on with Brendon's account and the way he's editing and I'm going to give him every opportunity to come clean about it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not if he explicitly tells you to stop talking to him. You need to respect it. Please read Wikipedia:Just drop it#Incivility if you want to see a policy saying what should be common sense. Brendon wish is for you to leave him alone. You can either drop it, or you can send the request up to Wikipedia infrastructure to handle. Belorn (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification - I don't want to talk to User:Griswaldo. He severely lacks good faith. Brendon is here 15:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Belorn, I would try to stay out of their dispute. Best not to be dragged in or make things worse. They should not continue to go on here either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oki, thanks. Belorn (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Belorn, I never got a chance to show my appreciation for your consistent support and encouragement. Thank you very much Belorn for your valuable comments in "dispute resolution" discussion (which now seems to have come to an abrupt end/pause) and all the efforts you put in to keep me from getting involved in mudslinging. Also good luck for your future.
 Brendon ishere 16:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please check this.[edit]

Can people peremptorily move my comments from a wikipedia talk page without my prior consent or approval? Check this diff. It's really annoying. He had already relocated 2, not 1, 2 of my messages before I gave my reply. I had to wade through all those messages to find them.  Brendon ishere 15:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think they got moved down as not to confuse the order of the comments. indentation is the primary method, but some do pref that the order of comments go from top (oldest) to bottom (newest). You can always undo his edit of your comments if you disapprove of it. Belorn (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I already did. But can he relocate my comments like that? Will it be alright if I started moving comments up and down according to my preference and whim? Don't think so. What do you think?  Brendon ishere 05:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to read the guidelines, its located at Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. The highlights are:
  • Always preserves the original author's meaning and intent.
  • If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.
Belorn (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
👍 Brendon loves this - Nice! Face-smile.svg Thank you!  Brendon ishere 10:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you == New Userpage ==

I like your user-page. It's far more informative. Good luck. User:Brendon111 15:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minor confusion your help needed[edit]

Take a look at the history of Islam and domestic violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Quotations from Sahih Hadiths which are subscribed to by a vast majority of the Muslim world, are not "reliable" when it comes to Islam? If Sahih Muslim or Sahih Bhukhari are not reliable I don't know what is.  Brendon ishere 16:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not have enough knowledge currently to have a strong opinion on what is considered primary, secondary, or third party source in regards to Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bhukhari. sorry :/. Belorn (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's absolutely okay Face-smile.svg.  Brendon is here 18:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming categories[edit]

Hi Belorn. I have procedurally closed the requested move you started at Category talk:Open methodologies#Requested move because categories can't be renamed via WP:RM, they must go through WP:CFD. If you need any help nominating it for CfD, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. There is places with two different names, and thus I am a bit confused where the discussion should be held. There is the category, called Open methodologies and there is the nav template, with the title Open movements, and I do not know how the two are linked. I think I will start with creating a CfD and go from there. Belorn (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Software license[edit]

Thanks for your contribution to Software license, but it would have been better had you let the author of the words add them, and thereby get credit. Not everyone cares about credit but some do. In your post on the talk page:

You said:

Looks good, through please add source!

You've got it exactly backwards. You added material under copyright to an article, and failed to properly source it. Thomas Scholten is the author, has provided permission (see the top of the talk page), and was planning to add it himself. I don't see any need to undo your edit, but could you add a proper reference please?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because I may have limited time tomorrow, I went ahead and added the ref.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good. You never know when a editor returns and has time to edit. As for doing the edit, the point was to show that he do not need to ask permission for editing an article. There is value by telling him to edit, and then wait and see if he would do the edit, but there was also value in doing the edit immediately and thus show the relaxed attitude to editing Wikipedia. I do not have enough experience to say which one is best, but I do see the value of each choice.
As for the ref. I did not know when I added the text that it was carbon copy of a single source. That has it own set of issues, but the section is an clear improvement to a otherwise low quality article. I would like to see more sources, but general improvement to the article has higher priority. Belorn (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks! Thomas Scholten (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Yeah thanks. its normally very good but possiblly not updated since that came into affect so maybe cant read behind it. Ill mention it to them.Blethering Scot 12:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 2012[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on GNU. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SudoGhost 21:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One revert do not exactly qualify as disruptive edit. I will however put it to the notice board if needed. Belorn (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SudoGhost would be on the hook more than you for edit warring, of course. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the support :). At this point, a dispute resolution looks to be in order. I do not mind disputed in article talks, but this one has the eerie feeling of being futile. I will keep trying through, but I dont think i will do any more "blind" attempts to fixing the article until a specific issue has been raised. Belorn (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Opposition procedure before the European Patent Office[edit]

I replied on that talk page. --Edcolins (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sorry, I just saw your post in the [page]. After looking at the now deleted discussion on the Julian Assange Talk page (I went into the history), if you haven't already received help, you should try and see if there is anyone with a comparative law understanding who knows Swedish law. Although that sounds like international law, the international project deals with the laws between nations, which is separate from comparative law. I hope the issue was resolved already, but if not, I hope you do find someone to help. IMHO (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Debugging (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ross Anderson
Digital rights management (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ross Anderson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment about civility[edit]

For future reference, it's not effective to cite the civility policy and then immediately provide a diff to your own incivility; mocking someone does not "point out incivility" but rather increases your own so I would be hesitant to provide that diff to others in the future, it does the opposite of what you probably intended. I'm not saying I was or was not uncivil, responding to incivility in an uncivil way is the worst thing you could do; it won't make others agree with you. I'm not saying this to try to be "right" since that discussion was just pointless all around, but in the future if you're trying to change an article that kind of comment doesn't serve any purpose. Just look at what happened on that talk page, the point you were trying to make got sidetracked beyond recognition because (among other things) you started mocking those that disagreed with you, which stunted any meaningful discussion about the subject itself. I'm not saying it was all you, but that was a surefire way to make sure your proposed changes weren't going to get much discussion in. It's hard to get others on board with your proposed changes when the discussion turns out like that, even if you're sure you're right and the other person is just being a jackass; meaningful commentary about the actual content speaks much louder, but even that would get buried in that kind of discussion. I am well aware that it takes two to do that, and I apologize for that. I'm not saying if someone is being truly problematic not to address that, but there are places to address that and it isn't on an article's talk page. Please don't take this as a "warning" or some kind of high-and-mighty "don't do that or you'll be blocked" because it's not, its advice that I'm also going to try to remember. - SudoGhost 03:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assange discussion[edit]

Please also see here: WP:BLPN#Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority. aprock (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I made a post there, and also found a few more sources between writing the talk comment and there. I guess one will have to see if Pluvia has any objections. Looking into some of the articles, it might be worth expanding the context around the definition. There is clearly enough material to use to give a rather view of the Swedish definition, and the so called three levels. Belorn (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Julian Assange[edit]

Belorn, thanks for your kind words. Check the Assange talk page when you have time. Let me know if we are close to agreement. Best wishes, Stan Anson (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Julian Assange[edit]

Hi there, as a recent editor of the page in question, you may wish to contribute to the discussions: ==Merge discussion for Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority ==


An article that you have been involved in editing, Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. prat (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC) prat (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BLP Discretionary sanctions notice[edit]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Dreadstar 04:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]