User talk:Xavexgoem
Archives
Rorschach Inkblots
I think if it's the case that originals are being shown, it shouldn't be hard to reach consensus for some editor to take a piece of paper, blot some ink on it, fold it, then scan it. If that's not the case... I just don't think you can censor all symmetrical ink blots.
- I agree, it should not be hard to reach consensus for a non-original inkblot. I feel I have my shortcomings when communication this issue. In trying to be unbiased in presenting the case by avoiding a possible solution, I actually made it harder for myself. At first I thougth the solution came up when somebody pointed out the compromise on having drawings instead of photos in the list of sex positions. But in looking at the talk history I found it had been proposed before.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, apparently it is hard to reach that consensus because it has been tried more than once. And it is the case that the "original" is shown in the article right now. By the way, it's psychologists, not psychiatrists, who are showing them. And psychologists do, in fact, show the originals; it couldn't be done any other way. Ward3001 (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- No apology needed. Common mistake. Ward3001 (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I had to take a break from this subject. I see very little progress and takes a lot of time. Anyway, I did want to ask something. There is no mediator assigned to this case. What should I do? Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-03-19_Rorschach_inkblot_test.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- My experience with the mediation cabal was much better thanks to you. I'm still a bit frustrated, I understand PhilKnight answer, I guess I was a bit naive in thinking the Cabal had enough time to try to bring the parties to the table. Not in this case. Thanks for your time, I may come back asking for advice later, I hope you wouldn't mind.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I had to take a break from this subject. I see very little progress and takes a lot of time. Anyway, I did want to ask something. There is no mediator assigned to this case. What should I do? Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-03-19_Rorschach_inkblot_test.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- No apology needed. Common mistake. Ward3001 (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
9/11 mediation
Hi Xavex, I need mediation on 9/11, but I do not know how to go about it. There is an ArbCom in progress, as you must know. My question whether 9/11 is part of the arbitration, despite the title of the request, has remained unanswered. I assume it is part of it. Would you be willing to share your thoughts on the matter with me? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Urd (Oh My Goddess!)
I suggested the merge in the first place and participated in the discussions. There is current discussion at Talk:List of characters in Oh My Goddess!#Undo merger of main character articles, and there are no sources cited in the 'article' under the redirect. See also; Talk:Oh My Goddess! and WP:ANI#Disruption by Kyaa the Catlord. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, saw the edit summary. Sorry for that. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- No problem; and pleased to meet you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Aratta case
I would actually prefer to have the mediation done on the mediation case page, given that this involves a TON of well-known scholarly references for the Mahabharata and Ararat schools of thought (numbers 2 and 3 on my list). Many of these refs have already been brought up on the talkpage, and have already brushed aside with a sweep of the hand with no counter-refs at all, as if the editor is just smarter than all of these experts are, and we should just take his word for everything. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how it wouldn't help. I have the references, I want to lay them all out on the case page; I thought that is what it is for. So I would still prefer to use the case page for its purpose. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I went through medcab once before, and the mediator said, "Okay, both sides lay out all your references on the case page. All references that support position A here, and all references that support position B here, and we'll just go with what can be reliably referenced." It was quick and easy and well-organized. With so many solid references here, I feel it should have been an open and shut case, but the more it gets prolonged, all we see is argument over wikipedia editor's personal opinions on the academic credibilities of these professors, PHDs, etc. who have written these books, and whether entire published schools of thought may even be mentioned as existing hypotheses. The only question I see is, should some wikipedians' unreferenced opinions in judgement of these professors and PHDs' credentials be sufficient to block out all mention of their names? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I suppose distilling would be fair enough, to make it more neutral, go ahead... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for you friendly advises,i should consider it!Kindly Jan Milch,--78.82.198.206 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
hey your right. i aplogize to you and everyone else. i do need some research and find the news article and which officer(s) is sueing. i am going to be out of town for the next few weeks. so thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Awarding Barnstar
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
MedCab case on Nikon DSLR cameras
Sure I could use all the help I can get. Janus8463 (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you!
Thank you for the heads up! I really am all for any sort of program like this! --JustHereToHelp (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
lectures
It is 15:00 UTC, and I'd like to start talking on irc.freenode.net, #wikipedia-en-lectures.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
NJM has changed the focus of the MedCab. When I filled out the MedCab I asked that the "The outcome of the Third Opinion to be upheld." to conform with WP:CON. As you can tell from the talk page NJM keeps changing the discussion to whether Zui Quan is a style or form. It seems that we will not reach a consensus, and Wiki policy says if we cannot, then no change will be made.
I am also growing tired of him asking if I'm a "Shaolin Do practictioner"? I am not going to give out personal information, and I know he will keep asking more personal questions to find out where.--MahaPanta (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I only had one request. That it not be referred to as "Neo-Zui Quan", it is referred to as Modern and Traditional. Now he is insulting my intelligence. I don't know why the article can't be split into Modern and Traditional sections.--MahaPanta (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:Lectures
Thanks for reminder! Launching Chatzilla now. Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Mediation on Aratta seems to have failed
Just when I thought you were helping persuade him that NPOV policy means giving all the major viewpoints, and we were so close to closure, I do not understand why he has received encouragement to return to his original position undoing all of our progress and remove all of the viewpoints of scholars he disagrees with. Won't this need to go to the next level now? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Did you know that the page was unprotected and before long he once again resumed edit warring his version selectively blanking out all the published scholars who disagree with his POV. (Disagreeing with Sumerophile's POV is apparently grounds for censoring these authors, in his eyes) Edits to this page should only be done by an admin after consensus has been reached, in this case he has not budged an inch from his position. What in the world was the thinking behind unprotecting it? It looks like arbitration for sure now, since so far there has been no way to compel him to stop continually removing any references that counter his personal POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have remained civil and I am only arguing that these scholars' views deserve to be represented; am I not allowed to do this without being called uncivil? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
| Thank you for your maticulous (might have spelled that wrong) copyedit of Liam Miller. Sunderland06 (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
- Meticulous, is the correct spelling :) Anthøny 14:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Request for mediation accepted
|
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gilad Shalit.
|
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
?
Are you finished mediating RV? It could really use some more of your attention. Apparently, it's really the word "purported" for which JzG will go to bat. Strange [1]. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think, given recent edits to RV, that there is any chance that informal mediation can help now, or should I ask for formal mediation? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- From the look of it, informal mediation seems to have failed. Is it time to request formal mediation? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Dispute? Well, the thing is getting worse and worse. Right now dispute would be over:
"the paranormal belief system" Which doesn't exist.
"though the scientific community considers it pseudoscience." This is not true, the scientific community hasn't spoken on it.
"As with other forms of extra-sensory perception, the scientific community considers claims of remote viewing to have no objective validity." We have nothing on this from the "scientific community," as we do for instance on Astrology.
"Critics explain that clues inadvertantly revealed by researchers explains how information on remote viewing locations can be arrived at." Critics claim this, but that is very much disputed.
The sourcing also sucks.
JzG just claimed I'm the only one with a problem, so reverted the tag again. I don't see that, I'm just the most active one. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
!!!!! ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
irc
i will have to set it up when there isnt a deadlineDGG (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Mujahideen arbitration
Hi, thank you for taking on the role of mediator in the edit conflict in the Bosnia and Herzegovina section of the Mujahideen article. A couple of points I would like to bring your attention to:
- the section above is (or should be) an abbreviated summary of the Bosnian mujahideen article.
- that article went through a lengthy mediation process a couple of months ago (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-04 Bosnian Mujahideen and Talk:Bosnian mujahideen)
- the Bosnian mujahideen article is currently protected to prevent edit warring/vandalism
- many of the same edit conflicts exist in both articles
Since the mediation process in the Bosnian mujahideen article was recent I have only asked for mediation regarding the defined issue of how the icty appeals chamber's judgement of 22 April 2008 should be interpreted and what effects it should have on the article. I don't see that any other new information has appeared which could affect the text of the article. I would therefore ask you to confine/limit the discussion to this specific issue, otherwise, I fear, it is going to be a very lenghty repeat of all the issues which were raised in the first mediation process. CheersOsli73 (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Lecture
Due to an immediate personal emergency, I will not be able to make the lecture. I am so sorry for the short notice. Circumstances are completely unexpected. Vassyana (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Which does not mean there's no lecture. ;-) are you around? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I guess you're not. We may have to cancel today then :-( --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Babel userbox
Hey there. I saw from your comment on the Babel talk page that you liked the idea of a learner box for languages. If you look further up the page, you'll see an idea i came up with for the 0.5 rating (like a 1 to 6 rating). here's some examples for you to use as a template:
Template:Ro-0.5 Template:En-0.5 Template:Fr-0.5 Josh 11:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Haha, glad you like them. If you want, make some more, and spread the learner movement. :) Josh 13:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, since it looks like you are mediating Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football), I wondering if you could say whether Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Chrisjnelson really should be closed and left to the mediation? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Lectures time
Yeah, we're posting on time for once (40 minutes early). Todays lecture is by Vassyana (an expert mediator), who will be talking about how to deal with conflicts, whether you are a mediator or not. Hope to see you there! --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Todays lecture is starting! The topic is "How source experts judge source reliability" and the speaker is DGG. The meeting location for setup is #wikipedia-en-lectures on irc.freenode.net. The lecture will be given over skype. Contact Filll2 or kim_bruning to be invited to the lecture chat also.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Ulster Defence Regiment - ArbCom
Thank you for your help in the UDR section. I'm not convinced though that the matter is entirely resolved. Would you be kind enough just to keep a wary eye on it for a couple of days? There is certainly a marked improvement in the atmosphere but comments by one editor have me a little concerned.GDD1000 (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Chrijnelson Arbitration
There is a arbitration regarding Chrijnelson over at WP:Arbitration.Fromos (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)