User talk:Guanaco/Archive/ 2006

Transnistrian referendum, 2006
Thank you for accepting to mediate the Transnistrian referendum, 2006 article. I am the person who submitted the request for mediation. I am not familiar with this procedure, after the acceptance of mediation should we continue to discuss in article's talk page or in the RFM page? As you accepted to mediate, should I submit a more detailed statement in the RFM page?--MariusM 21:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The case hasn't been assigned to a mediator yet. Before mediation can proceed, an individual member of the Committee will need to personally take it. Because of the backlog of cases and the shortage of mediators, this may take a while. —Guanaco 01:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Committee
Hiya! I noticed the note you placed on Essjay's talkpage. Is there any chance you're working on getting MedCom back up and running again? I'm a coordinator (read:clerk) for MedCab and we've got a severe case backup, so the more mediation the merrier. Oh, and if any of the MedCom folks want to do a little informal mediation, they're plenty welcome to it as far as we're concerned! Thanks! :D ~Kylu ( u | t )  22:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm here for the same reason. The MedCom needs a new chair to get the ball rolling again. Would you or another active member be interested? -Will Beback 23:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to do it. I'll ask the mediation-en-l list if anyone objects to me taking over as chair. —Guanaco 01:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Guanaco, there's a discussion about what's happening with the MedCom here in case you're interested in weighing in. The problem is that the ArbCom sometimes likes to refer cases to mediation instead of accepting them, but there's currently nothing to refer them to. Anything you and Will can do to revitalize the committee would be much appreciated. Let me know if I can help in any way. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, congrats for kicking MedCom into gear! If there's anything I can do to help out (other than join medcom, since I'm already a medcab coordinator) please don't hesitate to ask! Not that I bet you'll need help. :D ~Kylu ( u | t )  03:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shining Path
Hello Guanaco, I see that you are or represent the mediation comittee in Requests for mediation/Shining Path, and I see your "Accept". Does it mean that you accepted to be a mediator or that you decided in favor of something? Please explain.--AAAAA 11:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I only passed the case through preliminary screening, and a mediator will need to personally agree to mediate the dispute. Requests for mediation/Guide to accepted cases explains all this in detail. —Guanaco 18:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Telepathy
You volunteered to mediate a dispute on this article. Since you accepted, we haven't heard from you over there. One of the editors involved has made a lot of edits today; many of them have been good, but he's starting to make some that I disagree with. My recent experience with him is that it's difficult or impossible to discuss things with him.

In other words, some actual mediation appears to be required. KarlBunker 18:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't volunteer to mediate it. I only passed it through the initial screening, and a member of the committee will need to personally volunteer to mediate; unfortunately, I don't have time to personally handle all eleven cases I accepted. The process for accepted cases is explained in detail at Requests for mediation/Guide to accepted cases. —Guanaco 18:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah; sorry, I misunderstood. KarlBunker 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to remove this item from the waiting-for-a-mediator queue, but you can do so. I've decided to stop editing or watching this article, so that resolves the dispute. KarlBunker 13:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll close it. Thanks for letting me know. If you change your mind, you can always post a new request for mediation. —Guanaco 18:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
for your perseverance in sticking around through all the muck that happened earlier this year. not many people do that, or at the very least, disappear for quite some time. regardless of your stance on policy and disputes, i am glad that you have chosen to remain and contribute. ... aa:talk 22:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Coretta Scott King
The issue was not that anyone had celled her work "enlightenment.' The exact passage, and it does follow NPOV is thus:

--King, the widow of civil rights leader, Martin Luther King, was also a civil rights activist who, among her oppostition to apartheid and the death penalty, also worked tirelessly toward the enlightening of gay rights and the issues surrounding it. She clearly indicated her beliefs which linked gay rights to the civil rights movement, stating:

I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people.... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.

In her efforts she also pushed for a closer relation of the two ideas, even criticizing black pastors who wanted to deny homosexuals their rights.

In retaliation, members of the WBC along with their ringleader, Fred Phelps, planned a protest of King's funeral for February 7, 2006 at noon. Phelps quoted Leviticus 18:22 and indicated that Mrs. King had given God the "middle finger." --

The word "enlightening" is a shorter way of saying that she tried to instruct/educate others about gay rights, and nothing more.

But apparently that fact that user 132.241.246.111 will not get an account, has called edits to the page "horse shit," has erased references and pictures relating to the Sweden subsection, and is currently suspected of being at least the sockpuppet of two other accounts has no merit in deciding whether or not this person should be blocked from editting this page.

Typical wiki policy?

Gnrlotto 22:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm not an administrator, so I have no power to block the user. I agree that this person needs to be more civil, and I'll do what I can to maintain the article. If he persists in making destructive edits, I'll post to WP:AN/I. The issue with "to enlighten" in all its forms is the word's strong connotation of truth. —Guanaco 00:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Excepting that how it is used here, it is only used in the true dictionary definition sense.Gnrlotto 01:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand, but neutral connotations are preferred, so I reworded the section. —Guanaco 02:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me where "enlighten" has that connotation? Like the term in European history, "The Enlightenment," in no way specifies that people believed "lies" and now believed the "truth." It indicates that people started employuing new ways of thinking, startiung trying to see the whole forest oinstead of moving from treet to tree. And some trees they kept as part of their memetic experience, and some got excised, but in no way points toward them suddenly not believeing "lies" anymore.Gnrlotto 17:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

wikibooks:User:Darklama
On 15 October, you reverted several edits by wikibooks:User:Darklama, and most of those reverts were unnecessary, and there is some concern that they were not done in good faith. Since you have been relatively inactive at wikibooks since January, and because these reverts were performed without any kind of explanation, they are all the more suspect. If you wouldn't mind giving some kind of explanation about this, all of us at wikibooks would be most appreciative. -- Whiteknight (Wikibooks) 02:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)