Well, he's being bold, I suppose. You should be more precise in stating your objections, though; I think he's open to discussion on specific points, but reqiring that all changes be discussed beforehand isn't usually done except in cases that have already degenerated into substantial edit-warring.
(And keep in mind that it's only edit-warring if changes are undone repeatedly. It's quite appropriate—and even expected—that you'll occasionally revert edits that you don't agree with.) Kirill Lokshin 18:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello :)
First of all, your comments in Portal talk:China#Civility gave an impression of "I did this, and this. I was here before you, so I am better than you.", which is very immature, and I suggest you to cool down and think about it. Also, take a quick peak at Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Now, I'll clarify some of your concerns regarding me. Note that Wikipedia is not a battleground, so I would like both of us to forget about all those issues, and work on Portal:China to get it featured (which is currently my primary focus).
"You're a little high school punk"
"new to Wikipedia, and . Read WP:CIVIL. I have had it up to here with your attitude"
User:AQu01rius: earliest edit: 20:35, 19 March 2006
User:Ideogram: earliest edit: 20:34, 26 May 2006
How long have we been here is completely irrelevant. For WP:CIVIL, I could not found any criteria I have violated, except for rudeness. I have been bold, yes, but rudeness? If your talking about "editing your work without your talking to you first", I explained, and apologized for that.
However, for your comments in Portal talk:China, you have violated the following criterias of WP:CIVIL:
But again, let's forget about all those and spend more time on improving articles. Thank you, and have a nice day =) AQu01rius ( User • Talk) 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
A page you created, or image you uploaded, Portal:People's Republic of China (new), has been deleted in accordance with our deletion policy. In particular, it meets the one or more criteria for speedy deletion; the relevant criterion is:
Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy.
You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable notability guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content; it will be deleted again and may be protected from re-creation. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article. If you have any questions, please contact an administrator for assistance. Thank you – Gurch 04:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
read my talk. -- JakeLM 09:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
Cheers! : ) — Rand fan ! ! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{ subst:smile}}, {{ subst:smile2}} or {{ subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
I do not think that putting the words de-facto and de-jure are pro-PRC at all! The United Nations, US, and most countries in the world agree with the 'One China' principle - even those who only recognize the ROC agree that there is only one China.
Therefore, those who recognize the PRC recognize that the whole of China is under the PRC. Those who recognize the ROC think that the whole of China is under the ROC. Therefore, by putting 'two modern states' who not be pro-PRC, in fact it would be rather factual and neutral. It cannot offend both pro-PRC people and pro-ROC people!
I think that only by using de-facto and de-jure terms can one truly understand the current government in China Ghfj007 18:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I guess I missed the original posting on the mediation page, I just noticed it now. E-mail or talk pages are preferred between myself and Mystar as the issues extend over multiple pages, I'd rather not clutter up talk pages. WLU 00:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I just uploaded commons:Image:ChuckMoore.jpg, and I wonder if you still have the original authorization, and if you could send it to the commons people, so the image won't risk to be deleted. TIA. Greetings. -- es:Usuario:Angus 19:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I temporarily unprotected your page so Angus could leave a message. Just forward that email to permissions-commons (a) wikimedia.org. Thanks. Bastiq▼e demandez 19:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you changed the status of the Muhammad Mediation page. It is unclear to me why you made the change. Could you explain please. Thanks. -- BostonMA talk 14:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Ya, sure thing, I'll go take a look at the caseload right now, I hadn't checked the list in a while, otherwise I would have picked something up had I known it was so bad. Cheers. Canadian- Bacon 18:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think they banned him if i recall so go ahead and close it down. // Tecmobowl 19:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm just not able to be on Wikipedia enough to mediate a case. I should've marked myself as inactive, but I simply forgot to. Apologies. -- digital_ me 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't ever had a case, and when I signed up ages ago I didn't get any help, so you'll have to walk me through a mediation before I can go and mediate the world. If you're willing, so am I. :)
Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.
The Duke of Ideogram 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Now that the two-week review period is ending, can you let us know if your concerns have been addressed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chess? Thanks, Sandy ( Talk) 14:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Ideogram, Addhoc mentioned you as someone who might be able to help out with a case. The case is stalled as the mediator never showed and has now been removed from the case. A new mediator has been requested, but no one has volunteered. The editors who work on the many articles affected by the case are frustrated and unusure how to proceed.
This is the case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival
And this is the discussion some of us had about it on Addhoc's talk page: User_talk:Addhoc/Archive6#Difficult_Mediation_needs_new_Mediator
Thank you for your consideration. -- Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Holy ::insert word here::, I forgot about that. I can continue, if you want. Nwwaew ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) ( E-mail me) 03:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked you for 3RRV on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Geogre. Since you an otherwise good contributor I have only blocked you for 3 hours but you should be happy I didn't make the block longer. It is unacceptable to blatantly violate 3RR while you are warning other people about it. JoshuaZ 04:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
An update is here. Carcharoth 15:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ideaogram, just a quick note to say thank you for closing the CSICOP mediation case back in early November. I was the mediator on that but for various reasons my WP activity dropped to zero for a while after the case ended, and I never got around to closing it on the cabal page. Thanks, and sorry I dropped the ball on this. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin ( talk) 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer. It is something I have been considering for, well, years, now. There are three reasons why I am still hesitating: 1) it's a waste of time I could be putting into content creation (although stress generated by offensive remarks and disruptive edits by Ghirla is increasingly making me wonder what is the less of two evils) 2) Ghirla, despite being very opinionated and often extremly offensive, is a content creator even more active than myself - I don't want to see him blocked, just reformed (Wikipedia does benefit immensly from his articles on Russian architecture) 3) which brings me to 'what solution could ArbCom' offer other then blocking him? I am considering something along the lines 'users are allowed to revert Ghirla without concern for 3RR and remove his offending posts from talk, also his edits with offending summaries can be deleted by admins from page history' - but I don't know if it is something ArbCom would consider? Out of curiosity: what can 'come out' of RfC? Based on my experience, RfC don't do anything - some users air their greviances, other support some statements, and that's it - they are only good to use later to back up some statements if a majority has supported a given side, but even through for example at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo most users agreed he was incivil, I didn't notice any effect it had on the situation - other then many hours of many editors were wasted in the discussions on that page.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ideogram, why do you instantly pop up on pages where my name is being slandered? I would appreciate if you would stop following my edits. I repeat for the umpteenth time that I don't have a grudge against you personally and have no ambition to take any action against you if you leave me alone. Please edit in peace. Best, Ghirla -трёп- 09:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ideogram. I've answered Cyde Weys' questions. Regards, Paul August ☎ 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
-I was planning to hand these out on the 22nd of Dec. but things got in the way.... Happy holidays! — ¡ Rand fan ! Sign here? 20:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I've made a userbox you might like, given your name and all.
Ideo | This user uses an ideographic system of writing. |
--
Whytecypress
21:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
{{User:Whytecypress/UserboxIdeographic}}
Hello Ideogram,
I'm currently in the middle of a PhD at the
University of Bath,
UK. I'm examining the way that mediation differs between face-to-face, video-conferenced and text-based meetings. You can get a gist of the research from my (somewhat sparse) homepage
here.
I've been trawling through the MediationCabal archives and have noticed that you've mediated in number of cases. Would you be willing to spare some time to talk to me about your experiences mediating? It'd help me out no end!
If you'd like some more info, you can leave a message on my talkpage or contact me via the e-mail on my homepage.
Many thanks
Matt
MattB2
12:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for coming to my class' rescue on the Hitler Mediation Cabal page. After being attacked (falsely) as sockpuppets, I was feeling really down on Wikipedia. Okay, sure, six people randomly appearing on a mediation page was probably more confusing and unhelpful than not, but the reaction to our appearance still made me feel like, "Oh, okay, this 'anyone can contribute' thing isn't really true, if you're not following rules that only really in-the-know folk are aware of." It was only when having to write up the experience that I went back to the page, and noticed your "be nice to the newbies" comment. Anyway, thanks for restoring my faith in Wikipedia. JaneDoe17 19:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you closed the case for Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-23 911 Template Issue [6]. For awhile they had stopped posting the template but then another user created a new template and now the issue is front and center again since this user insists on posting the template to Jim Hoffman's page over and over, even as it is up for deletion. I expect that the template will not be deleted, as it contains a link to a humiliating attack on the "conspiracy theories" (via a Southpark episode) and so is being promoted by those who openly admit to their revulsion for anyone who questions the official version of events on 9/11. Given this likely outcome, the war of placing this template mixing attacks with promoters onto Hoffman's page will likely continue. Hoffman works to expose errors within the 9/11 research community and poorly researched or fallacious arguments against the community by those defending the official story. The template generally mixes all of these together with the major promoters of the theories, which means that the same work Hoffman works to expose the flaws in is being promoted openly on his BIO page. Sorry that my time is spotty on here - I have a day job. bov 19:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The people who posted the bizarre information have not engaged in the talk page for EDO Corporation. At this time, it is my opinion that mediation is not necessary. As for the talk page, what recommendations do you have for the now lengthly page filled with the exact information that was once located in the article? Any other feedback for this and similar topic articles? Seafront 17:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Those aren't talk page comments; you're editing a Wikipedia policy document there (essay-marked, but still a policy document), and you should expect no right to make changes unilaterally.
I will defend you if your talk page or other comments get deleted - this is not the same, and please don't waste my time. Georgewilliamherbert 19:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Please be aware that three reverts are not a "right" and the existence of a clear demarcation does not preclude you being blocked somewhere short of crossing it. To be more explicit, if I again observe you "using up" three reverts I'll block you for disruption. - brenneman 06:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi... I realise we've never interacted, so please forgive me for butting in!!!! But I think I ought to suggest that maybe you might want to try to be as collegial as possible, even if you feel you yourself are being provoked. It's not easy. I can personally attest to that, because I have unfortunately let myself be goaded into saying things I later regretted, things which ended up derailing important matters with side issues. It's often a good policy if you have points you are trying to make. On the AN, you said I have been advised by several people I trust now that I have indeed crossed the line. I will be more civil in the future. --Ideogram 00:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC) ... I think that's good advice to yourself and you ought to keep it in mind if you possibly can. Again forgive the intrusion, but if there are substantive points to be made, it is best if they don't get overlooked by people focusing on the behaviour of the messenger. ++ Lar: t/ c 19:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation to take on a case at the Cabal. Unfortunately, I'm focusing my efforts elsewhere these days - primarily at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and on a comprehensive index to Wikipedia for the use of editors. I think those two, plus answering questions on several different help pages and commenting on proposed changes to policies and guidelines, is where my time is most productively used. I wish you the best of luck at the Cabal; I do suggest, however, that you might consider a change in process - if you can't get to a request within a reasonable time (a week?), give the requestor some feedback (expected date you can get to it?) and suggest alternatives. People don't mind delays so much as they mind being kept in the dark about delays. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 13:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not care about your dispute. I do not have any history with you. As a completely uninvolved admin, it is my analysis that you are both behaving like children and you need to stop it. Guy ( Help!) 23:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input on the talk page, I've made it a bot more "normal" following a small dust-up over me not sticking to convention. If you think it's still confusing, please let me know. - brenneman 07:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello... I saw your copy edits at Solar System - thanks for helping out. FYI, the section you commented on (re: layout) evolved some time back as a means of warding off repeated references to "Bode's Law" (and other "theories" about planetary spacing.) Cheers. -- Ckatz chat spy 07:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I just saw that you are following the (possible) evolution of the Mediation Cabal on the foie gras controversy. I'm not intending to involve in this controversy, but it has to be said in the Mediation Cabal page that the sockpuppetry accusation against Olivierd, Zelig33 and me has been rejected and that not only we have been unblocked, but we have been recognized as three different persons: see unblock of Benio76 and dissolving sockpuppetry. Since there has been neither vandalism nor voting irregularities from the three of us, it has been recognized that the very checkuser request was injustified (see here). Both if the mediation is going on or not, I ask you please to clarify all this on the page, because I did important contributions and don't want them to count for nothing just because of a false accusation. Many thanks, Benio76 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, he's being bold, I suppose. You should be more precise in stating your objections, though; I think he's open to discussion on specific points, but reqiring that all changes be discussed beforehand isn't usually done except in cases that have already degenerated into substantial edit-warring.
(And keep in mind that it's only edit-warring if changes are undone repeatedly. It's quite appropriate—and even expected—that you'll occasionally revert edits that you don't agree with.) Kirill Lokshin 18:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello :)
First of all, your comments in Portal talk:China#Civility gave an impression of "I did this, and this. I was here before you, so I am better than you.", which is very immature, and I suggest you to cool down and think about it. Also, take a quick peak at Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Now, I'll clarify some of your concerns regarding me. Note that Wikipedia is not a battleground, so I would like both of us to forget about all those issues, and work on Portal:China to get it featured (which is currently my primary focus).
"You're a little high school punk"
"new to Wikipedia, and . Read WP:CIVIL. I have had it up to here with your attitude"
User:AQu01rius: earliest edit: 20:35, 19 March 2006
User:Ideogram: earliest edit: 20:34, 26 May 2006
How long have we been here is completely irrelevant. For WP:CIVIL, I could not found any criteria I have violated, except for rudeness. I have been bold, yes, but rudeness? If your talking about "editing your work without your talking to you first", I explained, and apologized for that.
However, for your comments in Portal talk:China, you have violated the following criterias of WP:CIVIL:
But again, let's forget about all those and spend more time on improving articles. Thank you, and have a nice day =) AQu01rius ( User • Talk) 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
A page you created, or image you uploaded, Portal:People's Republic of China (new), has been deleted in accordance with our deletion policy. In particular, it meets the one or more criteria for speedy deletion; the relevant criterion is:
Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy.
You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable notability guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content; it will be deleted again and may be protected from re-creation. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article. If you have any questions, please contact an administrator for assistance. Thank you – Gurch 04:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
read my talk. -- JakeLM 09:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
Cheers! : ) — Rand fan ! ! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{ subst:smile}}, {{ subst:smile2}} or {{ subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
I do not think that putting the words de-facto and de-jure are pro-PRC at all! The United Nations, US, and most countries in the world agree with the 'One China' principle - even those who only recognize the ROC agree that there is only one China.
Therefore, those who recognize the PRC recognize that the whole of China is under the PRC. Those who recognize the ROC think that the whole of China is under the ROC. Therefore, by putting 'two modern states' who not be pro-PRC, in fact it would be rather factual and neutral. It cannot offend both pro-PRC people and pro-ROC people!
I think that only by using de-facto and de-jure terms can one truly understand the current government in China Ghfj007 18:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I guess I missed the original posting on the mediation page, I just noticed it now. E-mail or talk pages are preferred between myself and Mystar as the issues extend over multiple pages, I'd rather not clutter up talk pages. WLU 00:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I just uploaded commons:Image:ChuckMoore.jpg, and I wonder if you still have the original authorization, and if you could send it to the commons people, so the image won't risk to be deleted. TIA. Greetings. -- es:Usuario:Angus 19:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I temporarily unprotected your page so Angus could leave a message. Just forward that email to permissions-commons (a) wikimedia.org. Thanks. Bastiq▼e demandez 19:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you changed the status of the Muhammad Mediation page. It is unclear to me why you made the change. Could you explain please. Thanks. -- BostonMA talk 14:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Ya, sure thing, I'll go take a look at the caseload right now, I hadn't checked the list in a while, otherwise I would have picked something up had I known it was so bad. Cheers. Canadian- Bacon 18:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think they banned him if i recall so go ahead and close it down. // Tecmobowl 19:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm just not able to be on Wikipedia enough to mediate a case. I should've marked myself as inactive, but I simply forgot to. Apologies. -- digital_ me 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't ever had a case, and when I signed up ages ago I didn't get any help, so you'll have to walk me through a mediation before I can go and mediate the world. If you're willing, so am I. :)
Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.
The Duke of Ideogram 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Now that the two-week review period is ending, can you let us know if your concerns have been addressed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chess? Thanks, Sandy ( Talk) 14:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Ideogram, Addhoc mentioned you as someone who might be able to help out with a case. The case is stalled as the mediator never showed and has now been removed from the case. A new mediator has been requested, but no one has volunteered. The editors who work on the many articles affected by the case are frustrated and unusure how to proceed.
This is the case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival
And this is the discussion some of us had about it on Addhoc's talk page: User_talk:Addhoc/Archive6#Difficult_Mediation_needs_new_Mediator
Thank you for your consideration. -- Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Holy ::insert word here::, I forgot about that. I can continue, if you want. Nwwaew ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) ( E-mail me) 03:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked you for 3RRV on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Geogre. Since you an otherwise good contributor I have only blocked you for 3 hours but you should be happy I didn't make the block longer. It is unacceptable to blatantly violate 3RR while you are warning other people about it. JoshuaZ 04:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
An update is here. Carcharoth 15:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ideaogram, just a quick note to say thank you for closing the CSICOP mediation case back in early November. I was the mediator on that but for various reasons my WP activity dropped to zero for a while after the case ended, and I never got around to closing it on the cabal page. Thanks, and sorry I dropped the ball on this. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin ( talk) 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer. It is something I have been considering for, well, years, now. There are three reasons why I am still hesitating: 1) it's a waste of time I could be putting into content creation (although stress generated by offensive remarks and disruptive edits by Ghirla is increasingly making me wonder what is the less of two evils) 2) Ghirla, despite being very opinionated and often extremly offensive, is a content creator even more active than myself - I don't want to see him blocked, just reformed (Wikipedia does benefit immensly from his articles on Russian architecture) 3) which brings me to 'what solution could ArbCom' offer other then blocking him? I am considering something along the lines 'users are allowed to revert Ghirla without concern for 3RR and remove his offending posts from talk, also his edits with offending summaries can be deleted by admins from page history' - but I don't know if it is something ArbCom would consider? Out of curiosity: what can 'come out' of RfC? Based on my experience, RfC don't do anything - some users air their greviances, other support some statements, and that's it - they are only good to use later to back up some statements if a majority has supported a given side, but even through for example at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo most users agreed he was incivil, I didn't notice any effect it had on the situation - other then many hours of many editors were wasted in the discussions on that page.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ideogram, why do you instantly pop up on pages where my name is being slandered? I would appreciate if you would stop following my edits. I repeat for the umpteenth time that I don't have a grudge against you personally and have no ambition to take any action against you if you leave me alone. Please edit in peace. Best, Ghirla -трёп- 09:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ideogram. I've answered Cyde Weys' questions. Regards, Paul August ☎ 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
-I was planning to hand these out on the 22nd of Dec. but things got in the way.... Happy holidays! — ¡ Rand fan ! Sign here? 20:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I've made a userbox you might like, given your name and all.
Ideo | This user uses an ideographic system of writing. |
--
Whytecypress
21:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
{{User:Whytecypress/UserboxIdeographic}}
Hello Ideogram,
I'm currently in the middle of a PhD at the
University of Bath,
UK. I'm examining the way that mediation differs between face-to-face, video-conferenced and text-based meetings. You can get a gist of the research from my (somewhat sparse) homepage
here.
I've been trawling through the MediationCabal archives and have noticed that you've mediated in number of cases. Would you be willing to spare some time to talk to me about your experiences mediating? It'd help me out no end!
If you'd like some more info, you can leave a message on my talkpage or contact me via the e-mail on my homepage.
Many thanks
Matt
MattB2
12:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for coming to my class' rescue on the Hitler Mediation Cabal page. After being attacked (falsely) as sockpuppets, I was feeling really down on Wikipedia. Okay, sure, six people randomly appearing on a mediation page was probably more confusing and unhelpful than not, but the reaction to our appearance still made me feel like, "Oh, okay, this 'anyone can contribute' thing isn't really true, if you're not following rules that only really in-the-know folk are aware of." It was only when having to write up the experience that I went back to the page, and noticed your "be nice to the newbies" comment. Anyway, thanks for restoring my faith in Wikipedia. JaneDoe17 19:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you closed the case for Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-23 911 Template Issue [6]. For awhile they had stopped posting the template but then another user created a new template and now the issue is front and center again since this user insists on posting the template to Jim Hoffman's page over and over, even as it is up for deletion. I expect that the template will not be deleted, as it contains a link to a humiliating attack on the "conspiracy theories" (via a Southpark episode) and so is being promoted by those who openly admit to their revulsion for anyone who questions the official version of events on 9/11. Given this likely outcome, the war of placing this template mixing attacks with promoters onto Hoffman's page will likely continue. Hoffman works to expose errors within the 9/11 research community and poorly researched or fallacious arguments against the community by those defending the official story. The template generally mixes all of these together with the major promoters of the theories, which means that the same work Hoffman works to expose the flaws in is being promoted openly on his BIO page. Sorry that my time is spotty on here - I have a day job. bov 19:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The people who posted the bizarre information have not engaged in the talk page for EDO Corporation. At this time, it is my opinion that mediation is not necessary. As for the talk page, what recommendations do you have for the now lengthly page filled with the exact information that was once located in the article? Any other feedback for this and similar topic articles? Seafront 17:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Those aren't talk page comments; you're editing a Wikipedia policy document there (essay-marked, but still a policy document), and you should expect no right to make changes unilaterally.
I will defend you if your talk page or other comments get deleted - this is not the same, and please don't waste my time. Georgewilliamherbert 19:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Please be aware that three reverts are not a "right" and the existence of a clear demarcation does not preclude you being blocked somewhere short of crossing it. To be more explicit, if I again observe you "using up" three reverts I'll block you for disruption. - brenneman 06:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi... I realise we've never interacted, so please forgive me for butting in!!!! But I think I ought to suggest that maybe you might want to try to be as collegial as possible, even if you feel you yourself are being provoked. It's not easy. I can personally attest to that, because I have unfortunately let myself be goaded into saying things I later regretted, things which ended up derailing important matters with side issues. It's often a good policy if you have points you are trying to make. On the AN, you said I have been advised by several people I trust now that I have indeed crossed the line. I will be more civil in the future. --Ideogram 00:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC) ... I think that's good advice to yourself and you ought to keep it in mind if you possibly can. Again forgive the intrusion, but if there are substantive points to be made, it is best if they don't get overlooked by people focusing on the behaviour of the messenger. ++ Lar: t/ c 19:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation to take on a case at the Cabal. Unfortunately, I'm focusing my efforts elsewhere these days - primarily at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and on a comprehensive index to Wikipedia for the use of editors. I think those two, plus answering questions on several different help pages and commenting on proposed changes to policies and guidelines, is where my time is most productively used. I wish you the best of luck at the Cabal; I do suggest, however, that you might consider a change in process - if you can't get to a request within a reasonable time (a week?), give the requestor some feedback (expected date you can get to it?) and suggest alternatives. People don't mind delays so much as they mind being kept in the dark about delays. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 13:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not care about your dispute. I do not have any history with you. As a completely uninvolved admin, it is my analysis that you are both behaving like children and you need to stop it. Guy ( Help!) 23:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input on the talk page, I've made it a bot more "normal" following a small dust-up over me not sticking to convention. If you think it's still confusing, please let me know. - brenneman 07:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello... I saw your copy edits at Solar System - thanks for helping out. FYI, the section you commented on (re: layout) evolved some time back as a means of warding off repeated references to "Bode's Law" (and other "theories" about planetary spacing.) Cheers. -- Ckatz chat spy 07:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I just saw that you are following the (possible) evolution of the Mediation Cabal on the foie gras controversy. I'm not intending to involve in this controversy, but it has to be said in the Mediation Cabal page that the sockpuppetry accusation against Olivierd, Zelig33 and me has been rejected and that not only we have been unblocked, but we have been recognized as three different persons: see unblock of Benio76 and dissolving sockpuppetry. Since there has been neither vandalism nor voting irregularities from the three of us, it has been recognized that the very checkuser request was injustified (see here). Both if the mediation is going on or not, I ask you please to clarify all this on the page, because I did important contributions and don't want them to count for nothing just because of a false accusation. Many thanks, Benio76 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)