User talk:Oub

This is a test.

Moved back
Hi Oub, I've taken the liberty to move your talk page back to where it belongs (i.e., from User talk:Oub2 to User talk:Oub). Kind regards, &mdash; mark &#9998; 16:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Mark, thanks! I once moved that page, but did not know how to move it back. Oub 19:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC):

The Passion
I removed the paragraphs in question because speculating on how a director might have done it differently is non-encyclopedic and OR. Your points are interesting, and you may notice I kept the paragraph about there being no Passion narrative in the Gospels (moved it up into the "source material" section. Thanks for commenting - Her Pegship 16:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

$$ \int dx =0 \Box \phi=0 $$

March 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Scarian Call me Pat 12:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: Scarian thanks for your reaction. I have answered in detail on the talk page of OOXML, which I think is better suited for this dispute. I must also add a sad observation, since OOXML is a highly political subject, at the end of the month there will be a voting about it becoming an ISO standard and given the fact that according to various sites  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070123.gtmsft0123/BNStory/Technology/home   microsoft looks for support of its case in a rather unconventional manner, one should be very careful.Oub (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC):


 * To be absolutely honest, I'm not interested in content disputes. You can take all of this to WP:RfM. I'm more interested in the fact of keeping the articles safe and free from edit warring and non-reliable sources. I won't block hAl until he does something wrong. Scarian Call me Pat  16:20, 10 March 2008 (ETC)
 * Re: Scarian Well I understand but was afraid of it. (Actually I suspect but I don't have proofs that HAl uses different accounts) Now what precisely I have to do in order take that to WP:RfM. Oub (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC):

- That sort of editing behaviour contradicts what you are saying, friend. Please do not revert anymore on that contentious issue. I am obliged to give you another warning for edit warring. Please stop. Use discussion. Thank you. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian Call me Pat 10:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Scarian Look you called for a break and we were discussing the issue, then suddenly Warren popped up and deleted the entire section without  contributing to the discussion. I explicitly complained about his behavior in your talk page before undoing the edit. To make it clear it is not the fact that this entire section was deleted was a bad solution, I would have even agreed with it, it was the fact that Warren  acted like this. That you give me the warning and not him, I find strange to say the least. Oub (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC):


 * I have done so now. Sorry for the delay. (Additionally, I have requested that someone [anyone] file for WP:RfM) Scarian Call me Pat  13:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Scarian thanks, wouldn't it be consequent to revert User:Warren 's edit then, since he did that without discussion? Oub (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC):