User:Improv/talkarchive made feb2006

Egil vs. Rktect
Thanks for trying. I'm not entirely surprised it didn't work out based on the past couple of weeks, but it seemed like it was worth the effort. As far as RfC or Arbitration is concerned, I will be letting Egil and/or Rktect decide on further steps, though if this spills over into further edit wars I may submit an RfC myself.

If I may ask, was there anything that I might have done that would have improved the situation, given my initial actions in voting on several VfD submissions that I truly felt were not useful? Feel free to email me, if you would prefer.

Ken talk 16:57, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights Servey on Wikipedia (The final post of I_sterbinski)

 * Dear all,


 * Wikipedia was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Wikipedia for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Wikipedia free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Wikipedia. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.
 * Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Wikipedia and human rights, which was still not formed.


 * The team's final post on Wikipedia, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_sterbinski
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29


 * The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.
 * We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.


 * Best regards,
 * Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza
 * I sterbinski 01:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation
Hello, Improv! I recently expressed my interest in becoming a mediator with Uncle Ed, and he encouraged me to apply. Thus, I've done so at WP:MC. Also, he asked me to propose a new mediation format that would make the process go smoother; I have created such a page at Requests for mediation/Proposed. Here are my ideas for mediation:


 * 1) Every mediator will have an office (similar to the desks used at the cleanup taskforce), at User:MEDIATOR/Office. This is where s/he will place all the current mediation.
 * 2) Every mediation case will be on a subpage, at Requests for mediation/PARTY 1 and PARTY 2. Thus, we can just put  on the WP:RfM page and in the mediator's office.
 * 3) Each case must first be approved by a mediator. Both parties MUST have agreed to mediation, as I beleive it's fruitless to mediate if one party is unwilling to settle their differences. Only a brief summary, without diffs or links to pages, will be accepted before the case is approved. The case may also be rejected or referred to the arbcom. In addition, both parties MUST agree to the goals of the mediation. (Again, I feel it's fruitless to mediate if both parties don't know what they are negotiating for)
 * 4) Once approved, the next mediator without a case will take the assignment. In other words, the task will automatically move to an open office. If there are several open offices, it will go to the one which has been open the longest. If there are no open offices, it will go to one with the least cases/longest time on a case (if this wording isn't clear, see the "Open Tasks" thing at the right of the proposed page). Thus, there will be no "picking and choosing" of cases, streamlining the process. (An exception will be made if a mediator is an involved party).
 * 5) Then the mediator will work with the parties... this is the actual mediation part.
 * 6) The case can then be closed by the mediator- if both parties have met the goals, then the case is successful. Otherwise, the mediator can dismiss the case or recommend it to the arbcom.

I hope that makes sense; let me know what you think. I look forward to becoming a mediator! Thanks a lot for your help. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

MedCom
Hello, you are one of the 7 remaining active medcom members. I have immensely decluttered the WP:RFM page. Now I would like to start assigning people to cases. If you do not have the time for this, please remove yourself from the active listings. I hope that we can become active again, and we won't need WP:TINMC to cover for us as they have. Please check RfM frequently as I may be assigning you. And of course you can always turn down cases and choose your own, its not some kind of the-leaders-make-you-do-what-they-say deal... anywho, just saying I'm trying to revive the medcom. Thanks, R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You've been assigned!

 * I have assigned you to a case at Requests for mediation/Rspeer and Fahrenheit451. Thanks Improv :) R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Active Case?
Hello, I'm sending this to the five of you with cases listed as active in the active tasks template. Just wondering which of you still have it active and how you're doing with it... Please message me on my talk, or email me if you see fit. Thanks :) R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation Mailing List...
Hello Improv, Angela, and Anthere. I was just wondering... I haven't gotten a digest for about a week. Would it be alright if I were to become an admin on the mailing list, as I haven't see you three around lately :-/ Comments appreciated. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, I hadn't expected such a fast reply. I wouldn't mind being a mediation admin, but now Angela tells me that digest has nothing to do with 'em. However I could still help out and accept them as soon as they're promoted to MC. And about assigning you: I have a queue right now: Sasquatch is next in line, then Ed. You're after Ed, so lounge around ;-) R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration / Moderation of Landmark page?
Hi RedWolf24

I recently contacted Uncle Ed regarding the ongoing edit war on the Landmark Education page. He suggested I ask you. My commitment is that the page should provide an authoratitive, useful and honest account of the organisation and its activities (including the ongoing accusations and counter-claims) which conforms to the NPOV policies. My own position is that I did the Landmark Forum about three years ago and found it useful. I have a lot of good friends who rate it highly. The organisation does have its faults, but my assesment of the criticism is that most of it is over the top and either misinformed or deliberately malicious. I do not work for Landmark and am not currently doing any of their programs.

Would you be prepared to take a quick look at the article, the recent history, and the most recent few sections on the discussion page (at the bottom)? I would appreciate your advice.

If you do feel that either arbitration or moderation woudl be appropriate, would you be prepared to be involved? If not, can you suggest anyone for me to ask?

thanks DaveApter 09:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I have to go to Canada and I won't be back for a few hours. When I get back I'll probably assign Improv to the case, so I'll leave a copy of this note on his talk page, and he can take over. R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 18:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Improv - thanks for your input. I can see now that there are several options before requesting content mediation. I have sent a message directly to Pedant17 with a view to seeking consensus. DaveApter 11:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop
You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 14:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Rasta
In order to be fair to all editors, this question should be discussed on the discussion page of the article... Codex Sinaiticus 00:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

mediation
Ed Poor just posted on Jayjg's page that I'm stalking someone, that I'm not making productive contributions to wikipedia, that I'm "hurting editor's feelings" by making "personal remarks", and asked what can be done about it. Note, Ed didn't post his dispute with me and ask what could be done about it, he posted it to Jayjg, an admin who has almost no direct interaction with me other than to sign RfC's in support of SlimVirgin and against me. Ed used mediation as a stalling tactic and nothing else. He didn't enter mediation in any sort of "good faith". He found time to make 650 edits to wikipedia, but he wouldn't try to resolve a dispute with me. Now he's spending time building a case against me with Jayjg, rather than spending time answering some questions in mediation to resolve anything.

What do you expect me to do? Wait till Ed has communicated in secret with Jayjg, worked out their nefarious plans, and ambush me? When Ed tries to get me banned, I at least want it to be known that he never made any attempt at all to resolve anythign with me, and instead agreed to mediation purely as a stalling tactic, without any sort of good faith, claimed he had no time for mediation, but had time for 650 edits to wikipedia. if he had made some sort of good faith effort to mediate and resolve anything, then I might have felt compelled to keep the contents of mediation private. But this wasn't mediation. We never got past the initial introductions. Ed never answered the first round of questions. There was nothing to keep private. FuelWagon 02:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

RfM
You said that "User disagrees with the fundamental nature of mediation". Why? That is just totally unfounded. I spend paragraphs explaining that I just dont want 3RR and vandalism to go TOTALLY unchecked, and that I would NOT even block for serious 3RR and that only other admins could block(whom I would contact if necessary). Since this vote marked the early start of the "pile-on", I withdrew before I had 3 oppose. I should have learned this lesson in politics while watching the RfA process again and again:

NEVER say ANYTHING unless you HAVE to, otherwise it will be used against you, either with reason or by sound-bytes/misinterpreation.

I still feel a need to elaborate on extreme cases, and so I fell into that trap. Now I see why Antonin Scalia was so darn quite...(note caps are for emphasis, not shouting ;-)...) Voice of All  T 20:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You said that you could support me...We'll then perhaps I will elaborat more then(even though my RfM has been long sinced withdrawn). I never exactly said I would "block people through other admins". I said that if the situation got WAY out of hand(and this likely would not happen, but I foolishly thought it worth discussing), then I would ask another admin to have a look, possibly resulting in nothing happening.


 * I would not have considered the vote to cause a "pile-on" risk even if you had 1/2 the explaination on my talk page, so I thank you for giving me that now. As for being a judge or taking sides, what about Ed Poor? From what I hear he did that quite a bit on an article(I think it was Terri Shiavo...). Would you vote yes for him if a vote was called on whether or not he can mediate.


 * As to your conditions, I could agree to all of them, in there entirety. I would be an Official Mediator, abiding by all of this rules. However, I would also be an indepenant mediator, "taking" cases outside of the ones listed at WfM, using my mediation style, which is pretty much like yours except I would use admins/myself if the integrity of Wiki is severely threatened. I sy "could" as there is no chance of me being an official metiator so soon after withdrawing.


 * Even still, the other oppose vote was just a soundbyte("punish"). Although I did learn that the 1 oppose=failed rule in no longer used, which greatly increases my confidence in the comittee's judgement, I still am not ready to go through this horrid voting process again. Besides, I still have do work on the NLP mediation. Voice of All  T 23:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

RFM
Thou hast been assigned. WP:RFM. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Improv, please let me introduce the major issues with St Volodymyr's Cathedral that probably led to this moderation request. Briefly, this article is about a cathderal that happens to be the mother temple of one of the major Ukrainian Orthodox churches (UOC-KP). The issues are:


 * (1) A group of Wiki editors, apparently either Russian or of Russian decent, continue pushing the Russian Orthodox POV in several paragraphs of that article. E.g., the notion of "Orthodox canonicity" and lack of thereof of UOC-KP. I can't imagine a group of editors converging on St. Peter's Basilica and starting bashing the Catholic Church on the subject of some obscure theological points. There are plenty of people who dislike the Catholic Church or UOC-KP, it's not the reason to write about this in every related article.


 * (2) Historical figure and location names, recognized by the Ukrainian government and people, also abroad, continue being changed into their Russian equivalents. This would be a minor annoyance if not for the chaos introduced by these reverts. Suddenly the "St Volodymyr's Cathedral" article talks about "Vladimir" and not "Volodymyr". I don't think this is purely a question of history.


 * We need some sort of order in this and other closely related articles. Otherwise, the reverts will continue forever, ruining the actual subjects of the articles. St Volodymyr's article suffered pretty bad. I tried to add something about architecture there, but it got bulldozed over and over again by the hordes of revert edits.--Andrew Alexander 00:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey
Hey, I found you :) The page I mentioned is Requests for adminship/Halibutt. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Tnx for taking your time to read through that page! :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

GNAA
I believe there should be no double-jeopardy for this article, let alone septuple (7x) jeopardy. Any further VfDs are absolutely worthless because they have a pre-determined conclusion (all 6 prior votes have resulted in keep) and disruptive because they waste everybody's time. At this point, VfDing GNAA is no better than vandalism. Maybe in three years if the group is defunct and faded into oblivion then we can talk about removing it. Till then, leave that notice up there--it has strong support from a substantial majority (we even voted on a policy for it, but it was deleted because it suggested kicking the nominator's ass). People have frequently tried to remove that notice, but it is always re-added--usually by an admin. So don't bother. Or else I'll have to sic Ta bu on yo' sorry ass (CC for humour impaired: that was a joke!). --TexasDex 17:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Pfff. But the policy is WP:POINT. Any further VfDs will be counted as disruption. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't noticed, there was one - Kick the ass of anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007 (last good revision) - which has now been redirected to Deletion policy due to an inapproritate name. I highly recommend you read this. I understand that you believe in due process: so do I. I also believe in the principle of vexatious litigants. Deu process has already been had - six times! If that isn't due process, then I'm not sure what is. May I ask why you believe that another AfD of that page would be valid and non-disruptive? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation request: User:Carbonite
Having lost a AfD for an article he disapproved of, User:Carbonite took actions that suggest to me a serious abuse of admin powers. Would you please serve as mediator in this dispute? My e-mail address (which you may or may not still have) is yusuf.toropov@gmail.com. Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 20:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Great. I'd like to ask you not to communicate privately with either of us until this is resolved. BrandonYusufToropov 21:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Before we even start to discuss admin abuse, I would like to see some evidence that I've even used my admin powers. Here's a link to the log of all my actions (blocks, protects, deletions, moves, etc...). Notice that other than blocking an obviously inappropriate user name two days ago, I haven't even used admin tools in over a week. If such evidence is not provided, I believe a sincere apology from Brandon for unfounded accusations would be in order.


 * It's true that there is a dispute over the best title for an article, but that's an editorial matter and has only been ongoing for a matter of hours. This all seems really out of left field and either Brandon has not done his homework or he's making wild accusations. Carbonite | Talk 23:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to note that Brandon has never edited my talk page and I haven't edited his (before I received this notice of mediation) in at least six months. We've barely ever communicated other than a few edits back and forth about this article. In short, I have no idea what Brandon is hoping to accomplish with mediation. The fact that he's already made false accusations of admin abuse (or any use of admin powers at all) leads me to believe that he would not be entering in good faith. We each have different opinions on the title of one article, but we're only two editors. There's plenty of other editors that will comment on the article's talk page. So, no, I will not be entering into mediation, although I will consider pursuing other dispute resolution steps if Brandon does not explain his rather aggressive behavior towards me. Carbonite | Talk 23:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Tell you what. Why don't we take this to mediation, and I'll go over exactly what I have a problem with. BrandonYusufToropov 00:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd really prefer to handle any discussions on-Wiki. I think a good first step would be for you to apologize for making false accusations against me to a mediator. Despite any opinions you may have of me, I'm actually a quite reasonable person and have no idea why you believe mediation is necessary here. For now, I will decline mediation. Carbonite | Talk 00:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've got a better idea. Since you were the prime mover in the failed attempt to delete American terrorism, what do you say you a) reverse [this vandalous redirect] by User:Chaosfeary to a nonsensical title, and b) stop trying to determine whether or not American terrorism exists as an independent stand-alone article? BrandonYusufToropov 01:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Brandon, you made some accusations against me regarding "...a serious abuse of admin powers." Until you provide evidence of such abuse or apologize, I'm not espeically inclined to listen to your suggestions. If you'd like for me to assume that you're acting in good faith, an apology would be a good indicator. Carbonite | Talk 01:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'm sorry I erroneously made reference to you seriously abusing your admin powers. That was a mistake, and I regret it. Now, since you were the prime mover in the failed attempt to delete American terrorism, what do you say you a) reverse [this vandalous redirect] by User:Chaosfeary to a nonsensical title, and b) stop trying to determine whether or not American terrorism exists as an independent stand-alone article? BrandonYusufToropov 01:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation request for improper action at American terrorism
User:Carbonite -- You may not have seen this apology, which you requested, and the related questions concerning American terrorism. So I will be reposting them below. If for some reason you don't respond, then, User:Improv, please consider this a revised request for mediation with User:Carbonite.


 * Okay. I'm sorry I erroneously made reference to you seriously abusing your admin powers. That was a mistake, and I regret it. Now, since you were the prime mover in the failed attempt to delete American terrorism, what do you say you a) reverse [this vandalous redirect] by User:Chaosfeary to a nonsensical title, and b) stop trying to determine whether or not American terrorism exists as an independent stand-alone article? BrandonYusufToropov 11:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the apology, Brandon. I've commented on your talk page (partially to Peter, but it will also be of interest to you) . Basically, my main interest this whole time was to get a real article instead of the trash that existed at American terrorism before the AfD. An article has now started to be successfully rebuilt from the stub. As far as I'm concerned, I've accomplished what I was trying to do. Honestly, I don't really care what the title of the article is. I didn't move the article, I didn't protect the redirect, and I didn't endorse the move. My suggestion is that you gain consensus before any more moves, but that's just my opinion. I've no interest in waging a war over the title, nor in enduring claims that I've done things that I've never done. I'm bowing out of any further discussions, edits or actions on this article. Carbonite | Talk 13:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Supreme court
Thanks for the message. I was just a little suprised to see a long article turned into a redirect! I suspected you may not have spotted the long version that had been overwritten: given what was there, I understand why you changed it to a redirect. No damage done ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 15:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert
Sorry about that Locke Cole asked me to revert to the start of the 3RR vio, and I didn't check. My bad, i'll fix it now if it hasn't been fixed already. karmafist 04:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Bitter medicine (re new policy on anons)
Hear, hear! Is there a discussion group of users who would like to nudge the WP Board toward treating the wikicruft problem more seriously. It is a bit disappointing that it seems to take the threat of a lawsuit to get them to share their thoughts publically, even to consider making a few tiny policy changes. ---CH 01:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree
I suggest that you take it up with Jimbo. It's absurd that the dratted article has been listed 7 times. Just imagine I did this for childlove movement? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I already have taken this up with Jimbo. Go check his talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for Admin Help on article
Hi Improv: I came across you on the Wikipedia admin page. I would like to invite you to take a look at the situation on the Leslie Cheung article. You will note that the article needs a lot of copyediting, fact verification/citation/referencing and in general, cleaned up to be held up to Wikipedia standards. I have tried to copyedit, request for the main contributor (Augest) to cite references in the article, etc. But this main contributor insists on deleting such edits and even tags on the page calling for copyedit, fact verification help. Please review the article for language, flow and the lack of citations/references and add your comments in. I think someone else needs to tell Augest that Wikipedia is not his/her personal Web site and that articles need to be held to a higher standard. I do not proclaim to be an expert in Cheung or his life but am reviewing the article mainly for language, citation errors. Thanks. --speedoflight | talk to me 20:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for stopping by the Leslie Cheung article for some preliminary clean up of the article. I have added some more grammatical/copy edits to the article. I have also added in APA citations to Time Magazine articles. It is my hope that Augest does not continue to revert these changes back to the low quality editions. I have had a really difficult time getting this individual to see that while he/she is helping to build the article, he/she is adding in information that is either POV or unsubstantiated claims. Not to mention adding in poorly written sentences. Hope you can continue to help with the cleaning of the article. --speedoflight | talk to me 04:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * One thing to try is to make the article so obviously better that the user will be impressed into not acting like they own the article. If the user starts acting up again, let me know and we'll discuss it with the user on the talk page. There's no particular need to involve admin powers unless no other options are left open. --06:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Sturmgrenadier
hi, there is an organized campaign to save the above self-promotional vanity games-club page from deletion.... i'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and voice your opinion? normally i wouldnt care but (a) i hate organized campaigns from groups of users (especially when they have vested interests but dont declare them) and (b) when challenged about it, they suggested i try it myself! so here i am.... cheers! Zzzzz 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Filiocht arbcom
Hi, it actually confusingly says "un-withdraw" in his sentence. I misread that the first time too. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 21:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation
We've already mediated once. To be honest, I consider the current restrictions to have solved the problem. He will either change his behavior or go away. I hope for the former, but at least now one or the other is certain. Phil Sandifer 08:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks
Greetings Improv, I wish to offer my gratitude for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant  (Be eudaimonic!) 09:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind, but your thanks made my userpage ugly. I de-GUIfied your comment without changing the content :) --Improv 09:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Poll on years of birth/death
Hi, you may want to participate in the poll at Wikipedia talk: Manual of Style (dates and numbers) # "Should the year of birth/year of death be linked in biographies?" -- User:Docu

Question
Who is the GNAA Staos character? He has been causing me problems and after doing a bit of leg work it seems he causes problems across the board. What's up with this character anyway? --Bumpusmills1 07:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Athenian democracy
Hi, I just reverted your last edit to Athenian democ. I thought the ref to present day Athenians was confusing: the passage was talking about classical not modern views (which hopefully are more historically minded than the ancient blurring of myth andf history).

I think "Nor" works at the start of a sentence and some connective is needed to join the two qualifications to the trad dates (that there were interruptions and a later not-well-documented revival). Probably the two qualifications could be reversed as the second is more important from a modern viewpoint.

Flounderer 08:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Rollcall
Hello, I'm just checking to make sure you're active. I'm checking with all the mediators listed as active to make sure they are truly active and ready to take a case. Reply at my talk page ASAP :) Redwolf24  (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom and Medcom
Greetings. I don't think it would be advisable to serve on both committees, for a number of reasons, many of which you mentioned.

I actually don't think it would be a conflict of interests, so long as you recuse yourself appropriately. It could be a problem of too much commitment and not enough time, but that's a minor concern, and I'm willing to trust you that. My real concern is that I think it would send the wrong message to potential litigants. "Okay, Mr. Difficult Contributor, you can either let Improv and company try to make everyone happy, or you can face the wrath of. . . Improv and company." Same reason Americans can't serve as both a Senator and a Representative - it just looks bad. I don't feel strongly enough about it to start an RFC or anything, but I feel strongly enough to vote no, so long as you still intend to serve on both. Nothing personal, you understand; I'm sure you're quite qualified for both jobs, and I believe you will act fairly if elected. I just don't like the precedent.

Best regards, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom/MedCom
I just think it'd be a conflict of interest. Although you say you will abstain from any of your mediation that is "unsuccessful" and makes its way to ArbCom, would you not make any comments on the matter at ArbCom, and let the evidence (i.e. your mediation) speak for itself? I assume you will answer questions posed by other ArbCom members (if asked), but with each answer you give, the likelihood of you influencing any ArbCom members' decisions, opinions, or rulings increases. I cannot vote for you, with the fear that they will mix. MedCom discussion stays at MedCom, ArbCom discussion is an entirely new entity, in my opinion. You will have my full support if you do vow to resign your MedCom post, but until you vow to do that, I cannot vote for you, no hard feelings, nothing against you personally (like I said, I would vote for you if you just resigned). You have great mediation skills, and no one can take that away from you. Further questions, please contact me on my talk page.
 * I just realized I didn't sign this. This and the preceding comment were by — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me!. 02:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom candidate userbox
Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.
 * User arbcom nom

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Userpage protection
Hi, I noticed that your userpage is protected, and has little recent vandalism. Protection policy says to avoid leaving these protected unneccessarily. Please leave any replies on my talk page. --Phroziac. o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 01:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Counter Vandalism Unit
Thanks for your help.

I noticed the 日本語 on your userpage, I was wondering if you could help me with the 日本語 on my userpage :)-- Cool CatTalk 17:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Improv: Based on the discussion on the Cfd page, I would ask you to reconsider your vote. CoolCat acted unilaterally and beyond his authority, without any kind of discussion or even a comment to those of us who are members of CVU. Please also see the discussion on the CVU Talk page. I appreciate your time. --nihon 08:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Timecop
OK, will do. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wicked Laser
Hello, I created a page called Wicked Laser that has been twice deleted for absolutely no decent reason. This term is in wide use by laserists and should not have been deleted by someone who likely has no experience in the field. The information I provided for it was useful and now the page has been locked!? Please respond back to me. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidgojr (talk • contribs)

Greetings
Greetings on India’s 57th Republic Day. --Bhadani 08:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Please Take This Case
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation&action=purge#phpBB_entry_dispute


 * Mediation is not about content disputes, it is about helping users relate to each other. Any discussion that is primarily about content should be handled via a straw poll or RfC instead. I am willing to help suggest that to the participants in a diplomatic way if you like. --Improv 19:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

community
I regret the way the community appears to be treating you. There was a fairly long time in which I misjudged you, and while there may be a few issues where we still probably don't see eye-to-eye (e.g. Userboxes), I am glad we took the time to talk on IRC and were able to work constructively on things. There are some things the community is struggling with, and the well may be partly poisoned -- however you decide I wish you well. Take care. --Improv 04:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What are the known symptoms of this poison? Any chemical analysis of it avalible? -- Cool CatTalk 08:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Open Mediation Case
Sorry to waste your time on this matter. The mediation case was posted a long time ago now, and since an Abbirition case involving the users, including me, was filed for, and has been opened. I apologise that you have seemingly waisted your time, and i hope this causes no bad blood between you and any of the people involved in the mediation case. Leyasu 02:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Wicked laser.jpg deleted early
I made a mistake and misread the date of the image "wicked laser.jpg", which was on IFD, and deleted it two days before normally permitted. Sorry! --Improv 04:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Bias
82.143.162.72 18:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Either allow both sides of the matter to be presented or delete all. Deleting selectively is POV.

Featured_article_candidates/Bulbasaur
I think you'll enjoy that one :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected userpage (Check-Six)
Excuse me, but according to, my revised userpage fell well within the perview of acceptence. The 'offending' language was removed and reworked, and I focused more on the group than the website. So the problem is what, exactly?! --Check-Six 07:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not want to pick nit, and I understand your side of the matter. I was of the opinion my revised page read not like an advert (And I'll argee, a bit tacky), but more like an informative 'About me'.  I'm willing to give it another go if you'll unprotect... --Check-Six 07:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC

Disambig page
I recently edited Golden Rule in order to bring it up to "code". One of the things I did was remove the 'venacular joke' from the page. The reason I did so is because it is a dictionary definition, which are not proper for disambig pages. I enjoyed reading it when I went to that page, but since it is not hyperlinked anywhere, it is not appropriate for a disambig page. Is it interesting enough for its own article? - grubber 16:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)