User talk:CP\M/Archive1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! DVD+ R/W 22:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Regarding the Wikipedia Neutrality Project
Hello there! You posted the following to my talk page regarding the Wikipedia Neutrality Project: ''I'm interested in the WNP, and support the general idea (in fact, I joined WP just to fix neutrality, though I do not only that and don't have a lot of time at the moment). However, I don't think removing comments, unless offensive, falls into the scope of the WNP. That probably should be discussed. Also, I'm not completely sure if a similar project doesn't exist yet.'' As I'm unsure if you would get the response I posted on my talk page, I cross post it here: Well, I searched Wikipedia extensively before creating the project - it's far easier to join a group than create one after all, but was unsuccessful. As to removing comments, it's offensive attack comments I'm speaking of, so I think we're on the same page there - although I'm not sure if I worded it the best on the project page. Thank you for your interest in my WikiProject and I hope that with a few more interested people I can make it a go! Wizardry Dragon 17:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls Wikiproject
Everyone interested in The Elder Scrolls is welcome to join the corresponding wikiproject I plan to create soon. By now post your name List of proposed projects.
 * Seems like we are (at the very least, almost) good to go. Scoo 08:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems right. I'll create the page now and post some minimal information.CP/M 21:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for the initiative by the way! Looking forward to co-operate in the project. Cheers, Scoo 08:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

?
you seem to have good info. you should post more §

Global city
The problem with the article is that the definition in the top of it differ from the difinition given in GaWC roaster. The GaWC states that globalization is the degree of how the city is invilved in world globalization process. The article states global city as most world influential city in all spheres. There is no source for this point of view, and this part constitutes original research or common feeling.--Nixer 19:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the problem is also the roster's name - "Cities of the World", which makes it look like a cities list. I've tried to add information about how the roster was built (and it's in the document itself). The GaWC selected top ten companies and counted their offices in each of the cities - so it, in fact, simply shows the level of globalization in the city (national companies, for instance, don't count at all). It has a good point in the light of the GaWC study, but the article presents this as the ranking of cities itself. P. stands very steady on his position, and just reverts any edits. He seems eager to start a revert-bot war so the article gets blocked by admins.


 * I guess the only way to change the situation would be getting some support from other users.CP/M 21:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I will help you if we decide what to do. For example we can remove the definition fronm the article and replace it with GaWC one to exclude contravercy.--Nixer 03:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That would make things worse... Also, deletions won't work. I think it would be better to de-emphasize the GaWC roster and explain how it was derived, so it becomes clear it isn't actual world cities ranking. CP/M 03:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

hi
how are you Shadin 14:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, thanks, though I was getting somewhat busier lately. CP/M 23:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

hey, how is it going i think i will add some gi(game info)to the wikiproject some time soon. Shadin if you need to talk to me tell shadoweevee Shadin

Welcome to Esperanza!
Welcome,, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of KnowledgeOfSelf, JoanneB, FireFox and Titoxd. The next set of elections will be in April, and I would be glad to see you vote, or even consider running for a position.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

Cheers!  Sango  123    (e)  19:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to welcome you. —    nath  a  nrdotcom  ( T •  C  • W) 06:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The puppet master swoops in. He says, "Welcome!", then disappears in a flash of smoke. M    o    P  06:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

re:TES Community
yes its new no its okay to do yes i will Shadin 14:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProjects
Your idea sounds all right (though it could fit under WikiProject Computer and video games as well). Here are some pages you may want to look over before creating a new WikiProject: Best of luck! Regards,  Sango  123    (e)  23:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * WikiProject
 * WikiProject/Best practices
 * Wikiproject/List of proposed projects
 * And in case you're interested, List of WikiProjects

Formatting etc.
I've been looking at some of your edits over at the Typhoon and submarine articles. First of all, please go over the Wikipedia naming conventions for ships. You removing all the italics in the Typhoon article was a bit irritating. Also, introducing a Russian submarine as a "SSBN" is wrong because it's the US hull classification for ballistic missile submarines. Also, forcing a break is bad for the way the article is presented in other screen resolutions than your own. κаллэмакс 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't convenient with these guidelined and actually didn't pay attention to that. I'll follow them in the future edits. Thanks for noting that. CP/M 23:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Admiralty Shipyard
Thanks for creating the article Admiralty Shipyard. This has been on my wish list for a half a year. Petri Krohn 06:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Lake Erie Canal locks
Don't know if you saw it, but I was working on the afd for all of the articles when you posted the message. List is now complete, and all similar articles have been nominated. Bjelleklang -  talk 00:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I just didn't notice - it happens that people post a proposal and leave. Just rename it so the title reflects the list. CP/M 00:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Help Message
Hi, I added the modeling (American Girl and JCrew), and the films (What Dreams May Come, Jack, The Fog, and The Devil Wears Prada), but I went to check if there were any messages today and it was deleted. : ( Was there something else I should have done? I would have thought that being in 4 movies (albeit small roles) was enought for it to remain, but I guess not. Please let me know if there is anything I can do, and thank you for being nice--lots of people were really mean. Veritasophia 20:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I need an advocate and help with mediation
Greetings,

I need an advocate who will walk me through the mediation process.

I am trying to get the following added to the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Max Tegark is a renown physicist and a PhD profressor of cosmology at MIT. He agrees with my addition.

I am having problem with an editor by the name of Lethe who follows me around Wikipedia reverting all my edits without commentary.

I have tried reasoning with him on discussion pages, but he refuses to read what I write.

Advantages of MWI

If Hugh Everett's theory was just another interpretation of Quantum Mechanics it would have no followers, especially since it proposes the existence of countless other universes which theoretically can never be observed. Because it is not falsifiable it seemingly violates Popper's criteria for a good scientific theory. The reason it has so many adherents is because it offers numerous advantages over the Copenhagen Interpretation, among which are the following:

1. Quantum mechanics becomes a deterministic theory making it more compatible with the theory of relativity and all other physics theory to date which are all deterministic. The Copenhagen Interpretation introduced indeterminacy and randomness into science. Aside from the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there is no scientific theory that includes indeterminacy or randomness. Einstein particularly objected to this aspect of the Copenhagen Interpretation. In response to it, he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

2. It eliminates the "measurement problem."

3. It eliminates Von Neumann's "boundary problem": where to draw the line between the micro world where quantum mechanics applies, and the macro world where it does not. Shortly before his death in 1953, Albert Einstein wrote: "Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects."

4. It eliminates the special place for an observer and human consciousness.

5. It restores objective reality of the universe between measurements. Shortly before his death, Albert Einstein also wrote: "Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made."

6. The wave-particle duality paradox evaporates. It simply and naturally explains the double-slit experiment. Richard Feynman said, "[the double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." David Deutcsh wrote: ". . . the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment."

7. Schrodinger's Cat paradox evaporates.

It seems Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle.

Michael D. Wolok 18:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there,
I guess anything I write to anyone can be reverted at any time. I wanted to bring my issue to the attention of all advocates and moderators in the hope of finding one that understood what I was trying to do, agreed with what I was trying to do, and had the time to help. I also wanted to get more editors with intelligence involved in the article.

I think it is your loss and mine, that my original communcation to you was reverted. You may or may not be interested in Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, and the addition I want to make to the article.

To the best of my knowledge, I do not have an advocate.

I found a lot of ignorant responses to my addition. My addition contains no original research, is well-documented on the discussion pages of the article, and is not biased to one point of view. Michael D. Wolok 05:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, talk pages usually aren't cleaned, except for certain cases. Posting to five or so people is OK, but to address everyone it's better to use the general page (in this case, Mediation_Cabal). It's not some policy, just common practice. Most mediators regularly check that page anyway.
 * For the specific issue of Many-worlds interpretation article, I am not a scientist and have no personal opinion, but have understanding of the terms and ideas. I'll attempt to mediate the case more formally, as for any controversial subject, so that the article stays non-biased. I'm not sure what the outcome will be, but reverts clearly require more explanation. I've created the medcab case - Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-18_Many-worlds_interpretation - but you should anyway add the info to clarify what is going on and what seems wrong. I suggest to find some links as well.
 * CP/M 22:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Gary Kildal invented CP/M. Bill Gates sold it to IBM under the name DOS, even though he did not own it. I wonder if Wikipedia tells the true story. Bill Gates claims to have purchased DOS from Tim Paterson. Only Tim Paterson never wrote a micro-computer operating system in his life. He just wrote a patch for CP/M to allow it to run on the Intel 8088 chip. He did this for a compuer hardware company while he was a salaried employee of that company. So, Tim didn't even own the patch. Both Bill Gates and IBM knew they were pirating CP/M from Gray Kildall who was the real genius behind DOS. Michael D. Wolok 05:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad to see one who still remembers CP/M and that early MS-DOS story! Right, moving from CP/M to MS-DOS, but it was the first known MS example of unfair competition. BTW, it's worth to take a look at these articles. CP/M 23:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC) (this is different link - an interesting thing how Wikimedia software mixes up slash and backslash).

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Greetings.

Since you've asked for mediation, the case has been opened, as Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-12 Solar Updraft Tower. I've taken the case as the mediator and already informed Flexme about this.

Just as a note, I'd suggest to avoid potentially offensive assumptions. I really don't think Flexme is connected with a related company, and he seems to be an editor in good faith, who just made some mistakes in judgement, probably due to inexperience. Many of us started with some disputes after the first edits, so please be understanding towards him, and avoid potentially offensive assumptions or suggestions. I hope this issue can be resolved without much difficulty, if both sides want it.

-- CP/M 02:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for willing to spent your time and effort to settle this issue; I hope that this issue will be resolved soon. I will in due time respond to the remarks that have in the mean time appeared on talk:Solar updraft tower, but there are also some issue I would like discuss off the record. Is there a way I can contact you directly? JdH 09:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll contact you by email in a few minutes. Please respond if it works, or inform me here just in case it doesn't. CP/M 09:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey
I wanna know why you keep sending me insulting messages. I want an answer immedietly.--Qasqass 04:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ...Are you mistaking me with somebody? I've never contacted you, and there are no my messages on your talk page. Also, the edit history can prove you that I never made an edit to your user or talk page.
 * Of course, I don't take it as offense, if there's some bug, or you were just mistaken with the name. People make mistakes, it's OK. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 04:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research Survey Request
Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 23:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC) PARC User Interface Research Group

Give me a few minutes
Got your note. I'm a few minutes from seeing the talk on groundbreaking subs (Hell, I shouldn't even be working on wikipedia!) // Fra nkB 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite
I finally got rid of enough distractions to finish my edit on the Template Talk:Groundbreaking submarines started shortly after your invitation. I think the discussion needs to define the purpose of the template, and such consensus really needs be done on the larger project pages asking for peer review. I'm new to both ships and Milt-Hist projects, but that's what my gut tells me. After re-reading, I found 3/4ths of my time was perhaps wasted. The criteria is pretty nebulous per my experience as an engineer and a submariner. Best I can do under time pressures. I'll check back when I get back from vacation mid-month. Best regards, // Fra nkB 22:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for coming. Just a small procedural question: don't you mind if I split the discussion and reply right inside your post, just to avoid quoting? CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 23:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL! As much as I interleave? Nah. Go fer broke. I trust your good faith. // Fra nkB 23:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So, I've refactored it a bit and replies. Just in case, don't take it as an attack, I just find the template more useful when it's small. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 01:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I started to answer here in aknowledgement that we have a different view on this, but decided it would be rude to clutter up your talk page, as I got long winded. After closing that, I spotted this (my phrase): and so is the Nautilus's Nuclear reactor. Barring those watershed's, the picture is far muddier.    Perhaps what you seek is not really relatable to a class per se, but should be in an article about the tech behind subarines... your 'must read' stuff would really be better laid out in such a manner, I think. // Fra nkB  08:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict your lack of neutrality
Do you consider yourself neutral as a mediatior? You posted a request on my talk page where you asked me not to remove the links that violate Wikipedia policies. You did not post any similar request on AdamKesher's talk page that he should not add the links. I think you have clearly demonstrated your bias and why you can't mediate in this case. (See also the reply on my talk page)--Denis Diderot 04:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not about bias, just about links being visible and easily accessible during mediation. I did it so that links can be more easily reviewed while their conformity with the rules is being discussed. If you insist, it can be reconsidered.CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 07:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

CP/M, Thank you for volunteering your time to mediate this dispute. Please see my response to your proposed solution at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. AdamKesher 11:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

CP/M, I've followed up on your request at the mediation page. AdamKesher 15:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I was never properly asked if I wished to participate in mediation. AdamKesher simply began to spam my talk page with messages falsely claiming that I had deleted the links without discussion.  Uncivil is a word that comes to mind.  "The Mediation Committee considers requests to open new cases only where all parties to the dispute indicate willingness to take part in mediation; parties are given seven days from the time of the initial request to indicate their participation." Requests for mediation. So why have you opened a case without asking me. I'm listed as a party, am I not?


 * Secondly, you wrote above that "it's about links being visible and easily accessible during mediation". But they were already visible and easily accessible both on the article talk page and the mediation page. So that statement doesn't make any sense.


 * Thirdly, I don't quite see what mediation could achieve in a case like this. Isn't the issue here what Wikipedia policies says? Policies are the reuslt of community consensus. This dispute concerns only a handful of editors. The consensus of the entire Wikimedia community is surely more important than consensus among a handful of editors.


 * Finally, what's more important, that article editors agree, or that the articles are reliable? Would you use an encyclopedia where anyone could be an editor and fact checking had been replace by voting? Wikipedia works because original research isn't allowed and everyone simply reports what reliable sources say. Voting and consensus can only function within this system. WP:NPOV, WP:NOR,and WP:V are the cornerstones of Wikimedia.

I'm always open to argument. If you think I'm mistaken about all this, please let me know. --Denis Diderot 19:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll answer each question. First, of course, agreement to participate is generally very preferable, but the Mediation Cabal, unlike the Mediation Committee, doesn't have it as an essential requirement. The reason is that the MedCom deals primarily with personal conflicts and MedCab with article-related, and parties are supposed to be interested in conflict resolution. I expected that Adam informed you, and I'm sorry if he didn't, but, well, let's put the history aside, and I'll just ask - Do you agree to resolve the dispute via mediation? It is a widely accepted, and the least potentially harmful way of dispute resolution. Other ways often harm reputations or involve blocking, and deal with the past actions.
 * Second, it's a practice that sides involved in a dispute stop editing until it is resolved, for any method of dispute resolution. It's why I asked you to stop removing links and leave the article as it is. Also, inclusion is generally preferable over exclusion, much similar to presumption of innocence, so I suggest to use the link-including version. Of course, we could consider the second way - version before dispute, but I just don't percieve is as a big deal. It's a temporary way for a few days, after all.
 * Third, the issue is that the policies aren't simple and aren't definite. The policies offer a wide range of solutions to any situation. It's unfortunate that the system is very complicated, with multiple levels of policies, rules, guidelines and practices, which often directly contradict, but the large degree of freedom is intentional, as expressed by WP:IAR. The major purpose is that the actual merits should be considered first, rather than what was said based on different situations. Specifically, these links fall well into the exceptions for WP:EL, so they are considered for inclusion.
 * Fourth, the article is excellently referenced, and could be considered for "best referenced article" title, if it existed. So it fully meets the V and NOR policies. The NPOV, of course, should be checked, but I'd prefer to do that after the conflict cools down a bit - remember, Wikipedia isn't Wikinews, and we should view things from long-term perspective. The external links don't need to conform to any of the policies, however. So that's why this is a disputable question. Also note that this isn't voting, but rather a policy-based discussion.
 * I hope all your questions are answered? CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the long answer. I think you've cleared out the first and second issues very well. ( I don't agree that inclusion should always be preferred to exclusion, but that's another matter.) I have greater difficulty with the third issue. I completely agree that policies should be flexible and never opposed to common sense. But I don't think it makes sense for each group of editors to have their own interpretation of basic policies. ("On this article, we feel blogs are reliable sources.") As for your fourth point, I wish I could agree. I began to edit the article and check the references, and found many errors, just in the first few sections. (And when I fixed them, it didn't take many minutes before new errors had appeared.) The cited references often don't say what the article text claim they do. Another problem is that many editors cherry-picks news sources for anything that supports their POV. So often, if you do some research, you'll find that the article is extremely biased, even though it superficially references some supposedly reliable source. (This is known as bias by exclusion.)


 * Anyway, since you've helped me regain some confidence in the Mediation Cabal, I agree to participate in mediation. I'll write something on the mediation page as soon as I find the time.--Denis Diderot 12:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I hope you'll explain your position and help find the optimal solution for the case.
 * Concerning the third question, it's not that we feel the blogs are reliable. On the contrary, we accept that they are POV, and include these links so the readers can get understanding of different positions. The external links aren't required to meet our policies, and it's why they are kept external and in a separate section. Of course, if you want, I'll ask more people from MedCab and WNP to state their position about the links, but most probably it will end the same - keeping several most relevant links, like it is commonly done in most of the articles.
 * For the fourth, as you can see, I admit the aricle probably has some bias, and this has to be checked. But, unless there are obvious and provable errors, which you are welcome to fix, a good in-depth review will only be useful once the article is edited less frequently. I suggest we review them once the conflict cools down. By now, let's just provide the readers with current info, and resolve the case. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 13:47, 29 July 2006 (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. -- ForteTuba 12:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing others comments on talk pages.
I'd like to remind you that altering the content of someone elses comment on a talk page is not okay. The only reason you should ever edit another person's comments is when reorganising the talk page, clarifiying who said what by indenting, adding a signature when none existed, or archiving their comments along with others to a archive page or removing incivility and personal attacks. 'Correcting' their statements is not allowable, especialy when you are acting in the role of moderator. Even a change you consider trivial may alter what they were trying to say, and it risks worsening a dispute you are suposed to be calming. --Barberio 15:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I just restored the direct citations from policy to be complete. It's similar to spelling correction, which is considered appropriate (unless misspelling was intentional). I didn't change anything D.D. wrote himself, only the citations. Besides that, I described all changes I've done in my reply, so he could respond if he didn't like this. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if his comment was incorrectly citing in your eyes, you do not edit the content of others comments. Especialy when you are acting as a mediator. You could simply have replied to state the full section cited. Unfortunatly, I'm afraid your responce on makes me close to withdrawing from mediation until you either start acting as a mediator not as judge and arbitrator. Please review your actions, I've already reported this to the mediation cabal for review. --Barberio 16:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't take this too seriously, after all, that was a citation, not a personal statement. I already restored it back to the way he posted it. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this was yet another breach of your role as mediator, and following on from it I'm going to request we have a replacement mediator. --Barberio 16:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Another? I just reverted what I've done. However, I'll quit the case if parties want it. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

CP/M, I'm sorry that these ridiculous and unsupportable allegations have made. Would you please see the new section at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict? AdamKesher 15:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've looked at what's happening. At first, there was a dispute about whether the articles needs a section mentioning theories that these photos are a hoax, because there are no sources beyond blogs, credible sources denied it, and IDF only promised to look into allegiations. There was still no consensus about whether this allegiation was notable, but the editor just deleted the very images, which are, according to vast majority of opinions, real. It looks pretty like POV-pushing.
 * However, since I'm no longer mediating this case, I'd prefer not to state it there as well. Actually, from now I'm not sure mediation will resolve it, due to some hardly flexible positions, but there are still other ways to resolve the dispute. I don't mean ArbCom, because it's an extremely long and hard way of resolution, including eight pages, usually very long (see a related case as an example), and ArbCom will almost surely reject a case like this.
 * What you might try is addressing Association of Members' Advocates and ask someone to help. Dispute resolution can also be done via a survey, creating a poll on the article's talk page. I can help with procedures if needed. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * CP/M, thanks for volunteering your help here. I don't mind seeking other avenues of resolution besides ArbCom, but I honestly don't see what can be done with users who openly flout and manipulate the voluntary dispute resolution process -- one user has ignored this process entirely and behaves as if it does not exist, and another has accused you without justification of errors in the process, clearly to avoid any outcome constrary to their desired one. I trust the user community and am open to a poll, but this idea has already been shot down by the other side in mediation. Do you really have any hope of a resolution other than ArbCom under these circumstances? This question is only half rhetorical -- I am open to alternative avenues, if they make sense. AdamKesher 20:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I suggest to organize a survey, and possibly ask for help from AMA for help with policy-related issues. The result is more likely to be for merits of a specific article. If the editors decide against the links, then, well, it's consensus. If results split evenly, a compromise can be used. In case the editors decide for a reasonable number of links, you can just point the reverting users to this decision, as well as have support. In case reversions continue, then addressing ArbCom would be the right thing to do.
 * This can be done simultaneously: while waiting for ArbCom decision on taking the case (expect a week or two), the survey can be started. Alternatively, you can ask _each_ of the pro-deletion users (on their talk pages) about whether they would agree to decide this by survey and would stop removing links if the survey is for their inclusion; assuming you agree to delete them if consensus is against. If they all agree, recall the request and start the poll; if not, this will be an evidence that Arbitration is necessary. However, rejecting two mediation attempts (if last statement from Barberio means that; BTW, I suggest you list the archive and main case pages as separate mediations) and ignoring one can already mean something, but there still are other ways of dispute resolution, which might be attempted. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * CP/M, thank you for your thoughtful suggestions. This avenue has been suggested by the second mediator, but it was refused by one party on the other side, and the rest won't even come to the table. After giving this some thought, I honestly don't see any other path under existing circumstances than to let this process move forward. On my talk page, you asked if I'd like you "to participate (as third party, not in categories)"—I would like that very much if your offer still stands. Thanks. —AdamKesher 01:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll join the process a bit later (it won't start soon anyway). Though I'm not an involved party, I feel that, since I've taken the case, I'd better not stand aside, but try to clarify some things; the accusations against me also suggest that I might need to participate.
 * BTW, about these accusations - I don't take them as a personal attack, since second mediation attempt was rejected and ignored as well; they seem more like a justification for halting mediation. The method used also seemed surprising to me: despite I stated that I'll quit the case myself if there are parties who want it, and, also, from the very beginning asked other mediators to join the case (on MedCab talk page), the participant preferred not only to do it via coordinator, but, moreover, to keep me away from discussions, jumping into off-wiki channels; possibly to create an impression that it was useless to negotiate with me. But, in view of the second rejection, this was probably done just to ensure the result. All above is just raw impressions, of course (and somewhat of a draft), because I'm not going to accuse anyone in the arbitration process, only to help with details. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
 * Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
 * Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 03:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comment to my talk page
Please note that what I reverted was, indeed, vandalism. I am sorry, but when I had reverted prior vandalism by that user on that very page, and that user launched a personal attack on me for giving him a warning does not merit good faith. This is what the user posted onto my talk page:


 * "The most entertaining way of playing Oblivion is to conduct oneself within the virtual world much as one would conduct oneself in the real world. In other words, be polite to non-player characters, do not initiate attacks on the non-player characters, and do not steal unless stealing is part of a quest.


 * "I was just having a little fun with it. If you want to whine about it, cry to the person who originally entered it. Also, go fuck yourself.


 * "Like I said, go fuck yourself.


 * "My point stands and judging from some of the other posts of yours I have seen, you need to pull the stick out of your ass and let shit slide."

He knew very well what he was doing, and since that time, he has been blocked. Please respond with your sentiments. Michael 04:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, don't mind then. I'm just somewhat concerned with many people lately using reversion and calling edits vandalism wherever they don't like something, and this edit followed pattern of a newbie, not a vandal. Thanks for explanation about this user. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 08:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I agree with you. Michael 02:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)