User talk:AlekseyFy

AlekseyFy: Thank you for taking up the third opinion request for Dan Debicella. I am wondering if you might have any idea when you will be able to offer an opinion? The dispute continues. Thank you for your help. In the interest of neutrality, I will sign this post with five tildes. 02:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, I just finished reading through the long talk page discussion and am looking at the cited sources now. Hopefully, I'll be able to before I go to bed tonight. AlekseyFy (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I just read your suggestions on the article's talk page and replied in kind. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Aleksey Fy: Unfortunately, your mediation expertise is needed again on Dan Debicella. Myself and the Debicella-basher are back in an edit war and need someone objective to figure it out. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

AlekseyFy: We do need your help with the Dan Debicella article. You are most familiar with the material, and (as expected) we are unable to come to an agreement. There is a lot more content in the article now, and no disagreement about what to include-- but rather how to structure the article and word specific sentences in objective ways (see the talk page for more details). If you are not too busy, I think both the anti-Debicella partisan and I would appreciate you trying to make peace over this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (I moved this from the article's talk page to here as I thought this would be a more appropriate place) Aleksy, thanks a lot for your help with Dan Debicella. You're a real saint for being willing to take the time to read through all of that. Question: How would I go about reporting an apparent conflict of interest vis a vis an editor and the subject of the article they're editing? Thank you. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Something appears to be wrong with the Talk page. No new content is posting. Not sure what's going on... 69.37.234.83 (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I had to fly to Miami on business on Saturday, and will be here until Thursday. I tried to post this from my phone a few times, but it wouldn't go through, although I guess I'm not the only one having trouble. My internet connectivity has not been what I hoped, but I have read over the new discussion and will have some time to work on it more tonight, assuming I am able to post over there. AlekseyFy (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

AlekseyFy-- hi there! Was wondering if you could finalize the mediation of Dan Debicella this week. The article lock runs out, and I don't want to return to an edit war. All the final remaining issues are on the discussion page. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

AlekseyFy-- Would you be able to finalize the decision on the controversial quote on our favorite article Dan Debicella? I have commented on the discussion page.

Talk:WWVB
Thank you for your third opinion, but unfortunately it is unworkable, as it does not match the reality of how daylight saving time works. Please see the following comment for an explnation. Could you try again? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please help me obtain some fairness
On an article section of a religious college, an editor persists on listing exclusively a couple of graduates who are notorious criminals. I feel his exclusive list of graduates is unfair to the many other graduates who are not criminals and who are unfairly represented by this editor who seemingly is opposed to that particular religious organization.

The wiki article is called Hyles-Anderson College and the section is called Alumni, while the seemingly biased editor is called MrOllie, but created a new editor acc that he is using to send threats and erase my changes. His new acc is HHaeyyn89.

My request is for you to evaluate the proposed addition:

A X01153943 added a new section titled Distinguised Alumni that I fully support. The new section is listed as follows:

Dr. Jack Schapp, Pastor of First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN. In July 2006, the Church Report magazine named First Baptist number 24 on its list of the 50 most influential churches in the United States.

Kevin Cowling, Pastor of Valley Baptist Church in Mesa, AZ and Administrator of Valley Baptist School & of Valley Baptist Institute.

Tim Ruhl, Pastor of Pleasant Valley Baptist Church in Chico, CA.

Michael Ray, Pastor of Hopewell Baptist Church in Napa, CA.

Rodger Alley, Pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church of Greater Denver in Denver, CO.

Daniel Kaighen, Pastor of Lighthouse Baptist Church in Norwalk, CT.

Dennis Atkinson, Pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in Englewood, FL.

Brian Evans, Pastor of Oakwood Baptist Church in Flowery Branch, GA.

Keith Gomez, Pastor of Northwest Bible Baptist Church in Elgin, IL and Administrator of Northwest Baptist Academy & of Providence Baptist College.

Jonathan Pope, Pastor of Christchurch Baptist Fellowship in Houston, Tx.

Clayton Reed, Pastor of Southlake Baptist Church in Southlake, TX.

Dr. Jeff Owens, Pastor of Shenandoah Bible Baptist Church in Martinsburg, WV and Administrator of Martinsburg Christian Academy.

Dr. John Paisley, Pastor of Riverview Baptist Church in Pasco, WA.

I realize that the format for this new addition may not be the best, but I still feel that leaving the biased editor's list of only two criminals as "THE ALUMNI" is unfair. Could you please help include at least a couple of these prominent alumni into the list of Alumni to have a proper and fair sample?

A stated reason these alumni was erased from the last was that "A pastor in Flowery Branch, Georgia, a town of less than 4,000 people, is not notable" even though X01153943 stated that "The location of a church is irrelevant when assessing notability."

The criterion used to have these alumni included is that they are grads that are Pastors of mega-churches and most well-known large churches (over a 1000 members) and college founders.

I feel my error may be that I do not know yet how to place the information in Wiki the way I am supposed to place it. Either way, I feel there is still a need to meet at a middle ground on this issue. X01153943 even shortened the list to include only those with verifiable notability, and even requested assistance from the editor in question to obtain a middle ground. Request was deleted.

Your help to obtain a fair resolution, even if it is not fully what the graduates and me desire, would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. W. Flores (talk • contribs) 10:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your inactive bot(s)
Hello AlekseyFy, Please see Bot_owners'_noticeboard regarding a discussion open pertaining to a bot account of yours. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk 18:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)