User talk:Melmoththewanderer

No. Period. Melmoththewanderer 19:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please look at Wikipedia guidelines
Please stop reverting my edits on the Wellesley College page. See Wikipedia is not censored. Information is includable on wilkipedia if it satisfies notability and verifiability. As demonstrated by the seperate page on this shuttle and the numerous cites I have provided, this informaiton satisfies these requirements. Also, you are wring about the purpose of the wellesley ikipedia page. This is not a resource for parents and students. Rather, it is an encyclopedia entry and shoudl include the good, the bad, the ugly and the humorous, so long as notable and verifiable. In short: wikipedia is not a viewbook. Please stop reverting my justified edits. Interestingstuffadder 17:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * regardles of whaere else this appears, it meets wikipedia standards for inclusion on the wellesley page. i have provided a valid wikipedia justifiaciton and you have not. please stop using deletion vandalism to spread your propaganda. Interestingstuffadder 22:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If you revert again you will be in violation of the Three-revert rule and could be subject to a block. Thanks. Interestingstuffadder 00:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Cabal Mediation
Hi. I've accepted the Cabal Mediation you requested on the Wellesley article. Looking over the discussion so far, it seems as if we're at a tough lock. It is my goal to try and reach an agreement so that the editors of the article can move beyond this dispute and work toward FA status. If it's ok with you, I'd like to use the talk page for the article as a forum. Please head over there when you have a chance to lend your two cents. →Bobby ← 15:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
Please stop it with the personal attacks on my talk page. What we have on the Wellesley College page is a valid content dispute. I have never personally attacked you. Let's just see how this turns out. Also, as for my spelling and grammar mistakes, I am sure that most of what I have written in these forums is full of type-os -- I don't exactly spend a lot of time proofreading, as there seem to be better things to do. I really don't care if you don't believe I graduated from Harvard. Why should I believe anything you have said, though, as you seem unable to engage in a debate based on actual wikipedia guidelines. Interestingstuffadder 22:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wellesley College Dispute
Hi. It seems like you might want to bump this up to a formal mediation level. Since my job is to try and reach a compromise through very casual discussion, I don't think there's much more I can do. We've reached a point where no wiggle room remains. You don't want to see the profane term on the college page (although I will again thankyou for at least agreeing to include a link to the Senate Bus) and Interestingstuffadder refuses to give any ground. In formal mediation, the mediators will be able to be somewaht more forceful, rather than just making suggestions. I'm dissappointed it has come to this (since I joined Cabal with the hopes of keeping disputes away from any formal process) but I feel it is in your best interest to move to the formal level. I'd also encourage you to try and find other Wikipedians with an interest in the Wellesley article who might add to your support. If the case does get picked up in formal mediation, you may list me as a party (in fact, I'd appreciate it if you did) and I'll offer my opinions on the matter. Have a great day, and I'm sorry I wasn't able to be more helpful. →Bobby ← 14:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You may soon be in violation of the 3 Revert Rule
If you revert the Wellesley College page again you will be in violation of the Three-revert rule and will be subject to a block. Thanks. Interestingstuffadder 22:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Contrary to your accusation, I have not violated the Three-revert rule. A user violates this rule upon his or her fourth edit to an article within a 24 hour period.  I have only edited the Wellesley College article three times within this 24 hour period. Maybe you would be a more effective contributor to Wikipedia if you bothered to learn some Wikipedia guidelines. Interestingstuffadder 22:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your RFM
Provided you are willing, I have decided to take on your mediation case. Please let me know there if this is acceptable to you. ^ demon [omg plz] 06:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

proposed compromise
I would be willing to compromise. The terms would be 1) No mention of the "fuck truck" on the wellesley college page. 2) You leave the Wellesley College Senate Bus page as it is, including (verifiable) discussion of media coverage. 3) We withdraw this case from binding mediation, as we have reached a solution independent of that process. Are you agreeable to this solution to our long term edit-warring? Interestingstuffadder 01:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, actually you also refused to compromise. You offered no alternative to removing this content completely. I am offering a solution that allows the media attention a place on wikipedia but in a way that does not impact the Wellesley College page. If you think the Senate Bus article will be deleted anyway without links, then wouldnt it make sense to just let this process work its way through? Interestingstuffadder 01:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

to set the record straight, I did not add most of the content you refer to as "gossip" to the senate bus article. Also, pretty much every sentence there is a direct quote or paraphrase of content included in a source (and among these sources are major national and regional publications), so it is unclear how this is "gossip". It is interesting to note that I am willing to acknowledge that this fight has gone on a bit long and has gotten silly. if you were so willing to compromise before, why would you be unwilling to accept an even better deal now? are you just tying to prove a point? see wp:point. either way, i am not going to consent to the mediaiton after all, since, as I see it, there is no issue to mediate since I will no longer interfere with the wellesley college page. Interestingstuffadder 02:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That is fine with me. My main reason for dropping this issue is that it has sort of been blown out of proportion. I hope you will take this as a sign of my collegial (if stubborn) spirit show me a similar collegiality. Hopefully, to reciprocate this collegiality and as a goodwill gesture, you will be kind enough to let the Wellesley College Senate Bus remain as is. The current Wellesley College Senate Bus article is the compromise product of a long collaborative process among editors with quite disparate points of view and is quite balanced (eg provides evidence calling into question the whole idea of the "fuck truck" and perceptions about wellesley students' sexual behavior). It also is well sourced and has survived several deletion debates as it stands. Interestingstuffadder 02:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)