User talk:Revolving Bugbear/Archive 3

qa
has been nominated for delection before, and survived, twice i think. its notable, some anonomous user just decided to fcuk with it.Guaguis 22:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your kind words
Hello, and thank you for your kind words. I need to deal with things in my real life, and unfortunately this will force me to be away from Wikipedia. I do wish that we had met under better circumstances. Please take care. --Kyok o 23:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidate review: Buffy article
''Hiya, welcome back from your holiday, I'm just letting people know that 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' is currently under peer review at Peer review/Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I'm hoping it might one day become a featured article. So any comments on how it might be improved upon would be apprecitated. Thanks. -- Paxomen 18:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)''


 * Thanks, and thanks also for the heads up. I'll take a look at what people are saying. I started to try and play with that article once ... it gave me a headache ;) - CheNuevara 20:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Damn right it's a headache. I hopefully improved the structure by dividing into only 6 key sections; 'Production', 'The show', 'Characters', 'Spinoffs', 'Cultural impact' and 'Series information'. -- Paxomen 00:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * UPDATE - I nominated the article Buffy the Vampire Slayer to be featured.


 * Should it become a featured article, it will be possible for the article to appear on the Wikipedia main page on March 10th 2007, the 10th anniversary of Buffy (the premiere, "Welcome to the Hellmouth" aired March 10th 1997).


 * Thought you might be interested in choosing to support/object and/or provide any ideas on how it needs to be improved to become featured.


 * Thanks -- Paxomen 18:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

random
i knew vin diesel personally. he was a homosexual man. next time you revert the truth you will be hunted down by the CIA. - 130.156.3.254 (14:49, 22 September 2006)

Username change
Thanks for the information.Freebird Jackson 01:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * moved to:

User:CheNuevara/brag

thank you once again
Hi there, thank you once again for your kind words and for reaching out to help a stranger. I had written, "I need to deal with things in my real life," and obviously what I did was not a productive manner of doing so (how is that for understatement?). Seriously, depression does hurt, though I have been in a curiously good mood over the past day. Rather unable to sleep, too. We'll see if that improves as I get adjusted to things. I love your username, BTW. Thanks again. --Kyok o 13:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cattle Draft
I've posted a second draft of the cult section underneath your draft. Overall its almost identical to what you wrote but with a few more background details like place names and some relevent details on Isis (was depicted as a cow etc), Could you look over it and give feedback.

If you're satisfied, we can get to work on the citation problem.

Could you also look over these two drafts for the related phenomena section and give me some feedback on them. Just content WP:OR, WP:POV WP:V,WP:RS right now. We'll worry about notability and weight later. I need to get good practice down first.


 * black helicopters
 * Human mutilations

perfectblue 11:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding our irc discussion concerning Cheema

 * Hi.Thanks for your attention to this matter.


 * I wanted to summarize the issues that I have with the article. The most recent edits by User:Street Scholar cite a reference which I can establish is nonexistent. The "book" that he cites does not include a publisher or an ISBN number. I went to my university library (http://www.lib.utexas.edu) and asked the librarian for it. She searched and found no such book in any library on campus or off campus in the National academic databases. The "online ref" that he cites is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/ is a Yahoo groups page that is not a peer-reviewed source and thus does not satisfy WP:RS. He also cites another book:Sindhi Culture, By U.T. Thakkur. Such a book does exist and I will look at it later today. Based on his bad faith edit of the previous nonexistent ref, Isuspect that he is mis-citing the reference.Plus, if you look at complaints against him here  and his attacks against me in my talk page here you will see that the user seems to have an Islamist and anti-Hindu bias that I suspect is coloring his edits. Similar problems exist with Muhammad bin Qasim (which he has been editing with the same false refs).I tried to initiate discussion with him but he responded with threats and what I feel is incivility per WP:Civility (see above diff of my talk page).


 * That's my side of the issue anyway.Thanks again for your investigation into these matters and I hope that we can all reach a reasonable conclusion concerning this unfortunate matter. Regards.Hkelkar 18:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. I have the book "Sindhi Culture" by Thakkur with me right now. The book is a University of Bombay Sociology Series No 9 publication and has a total of 250 pages (including index).It is divided into 5 Chapters. Cradle, People & Occupation, Human Relations, Religion, Spirit World, Rituals and Re-formation of society. I have run through the pages and


 * 1) I have not found this sentence " Humiliating conditions were imposed on the Jats depriving them of many civil rights.This sentence is not there anywhere.

This sentence:Th Brahmim chamberlain who usurped the throne of Rajput King Sahasi II went to Brahmanabad, he enjoined upon the Jats and Lohanas not to carry swords, avoid velvet or silken cloth, ride horses without saddles and walk about bare-headed and bare-footed" anywhere" is there on page 14. However, it is ONE sentence that does not necessarily bolster the claim of systemic discrimination against the Jats.


 * 1) In fact, several of MY assertions concerning Qasim are SUPPORTED by theis book viz pgs 14-15

Both Hinduism and Buddhism flourished side by side. The king was a Brahman and the governors were generally Buddhists. The ruler of Brahmanadabad, Agham Lohana also had professed Buddhism and his spiritual guide Samani Budhugi owned an idol-house or temple which was called Budh Nawwihar.

When Muhammad Kasim invaded Sind in 711 AD, Buddhism had no resistance to offer to their fire and steel. The rosary could not be a match for the sword and the terms Lov and Peace had no meaning to them. The carried fire and sword wherever they went and obliterated all that came their way.Muhammad triumphantly marched into the country, conquering Debal etc. one after the other in quick succession, and in less than a year and half, the far-flung Hindu kingdon was crushed, the great civilization fell back and Sind entered the darkest period of it's history.


 * Nasty little bugger wasn't he, eh?

There was a fearful outbreak of religious bigotry in several places and temples were wantonly desecrated. AT Debal, Nairun and Aror temples were demolished and converted into mosques.(Resistors) were put to death and women made captives.The Jizya was exacted with special care.(Hindus) were requird to feed Muslim travellers for three days and three nights.

The Arabd left no legacy behind except a few colonies and a few families as t menorial of their conquest. They had no constitutional doctrine (implying that the natives did),no higher culture (author takes position that pre-Islamic Sind was culturally superior), and no superior art or language.

There is more on p16 qbout forced conversions and other atrocities imflicted on Hindus.

Gee, thanks. I have a lot of stuff I can add in bin-Qasim from here :-).


 * 1) I do not see any mention of atrocities inflicted on the Jats by Hindus in this book. The tone of the bok is positive to the pre-Islamic Jats, Hindus and Buddhists and is generally pejorative to the old Ay-Rabs. Hkelkar 21:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thus, I conclude that Street Scholar just practiced some good-old-fashioned "taqqiya" here by a little mis-citing ^__^. Hkelkar 21:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, okay. I'm sorry I became aggressive. However, my comments were not motivated by racialism. I'll stop per your request, though Street Scholar needs to stop also.Hkelkar 05:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to login...
The thing is, its not one file, the book is loads of sections in the files section on yahoo groups. They are translated works and are hard to find otherwise. Furthermore, some are in Hindi which you have to install fonts on your computer to read them. It would be best if you sign up or if you get get hold of the following books which are available more easily:

1. The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham 2. The peoples of Pakistan, By Yu. V. Gankovsky 3. Arab-o-Hind ke Talluqat, By Sulaiman Nadvi. 4. The Gazetteer of Pakistan: The Province of Sind, edited by T.H. Sorly 5. Gazetteer of the Province of Sind, compiled by E.H. Aitkin 6. Ancient Trade in Pakistan, By Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Pakistan Quarterly, Vol VII #1957 7.     Sindhj Culture, By U.T. Thakkur. 8.    Tareekh-Sind, By Manlana Syed Abu Zafar Nadvi. 9. An Advanced History of India, Part II, By R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Roychandra and Kalikinkar Ditta 10. The Land of five rivers and Sind, By David Ross 11.  Arab~o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Suiaiman Nadvi; 12. Tareekh-e-Sind, Part I, By Ijaaul Haq Quddusi. 13. Dr. Mohammad Ishaque in Journal of Pakistan Historical Society Vol 3 Part1 14. A Study of History, Vol VII, By Arnold Toynbee. 15.   Ibid. 16.   Sind: A General Introduction, By M.T. Lambrick. 17. A greater portion of the area now called Baluchistan was then known as Makran. The word Baluchistan came into vogue much later. 18. Journal of Pakistan, Historical Society, Vol.111, Part 1 19. Tauzeehat-e-Tareekh-e-Masoomi. 20. Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent, by Dr. I.H Qureshi 21. Tareekh-e-Sind, Part 1, by Aijazul Haq Quddusi 22. The Making of India, By Dr. Abdulla Yusuf Ali. 23. Jaunat-us-Sind, By Maulai Shaidai. 24. Imperial Gazetteer of India. 25. Ibid. 26. Indian Muslims, By Prof. M. Mujeeb. 27. Tareekh-e-Sind, Part 1, By Aijazul Haq Quddusi. 28. The preaching of Islam by Sir Thomas Arnold 29. Shias of India, By John Norman Hollister. 30.   Ibid. 31.   Arab-o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Syed Sulaiman Nadvi 32. Sindhi Culture, By U.T. Thakut. 33. Tareekh-e-Sind, By Maulana Abu Zafar Nadvi. 34. The Peoples of Pakistan, By. Yu. V. Gankovsky. 35. Arab-o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Syed Sulairnan Nadvi.

--Street Scholar 15:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * While I see that some of these refs are legitimate, I ask that SPECIFIC sources from the above be cited (and I will check them like I checked the UT Thakkur ref).I do not believe that all of them are non-partisanper WP:RS so plz show specific source. The yahoogroups site, in on itself, is worthless as a wikipedia source.Hkelkar 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura
(pasted from my talk section) Antonrojo 07:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We're currently working on mediation on a subpage of the talk page. Before making a whole lot of changes to the article, you might want to join the discussion. - Che Nuevara  06:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I was about 90% through on the edits so I finished them off. If you could point me towards the subpage (I assume you don't mean the sections of the Talk page referring to mediation), I'll look it over and comment if appropriate. Antonrojo 07:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Exact same problem brewing on Muhammad bin Qasim
The same issues regarding the validity of the fake refs with Street Scholar are brewing on a related topic Muhammad bin Qasim with User:Siddiqui.Can you please advise him not to remove tags until disputes are resolved?Thanks.Hkelkar 15:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Another course of action regarding Cheema?
Shall I file an RfA?Hkelkar 17:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Street Scholar is back with his tendentious edits.For the record, could you drop him a note asking him one last time to discuss? If he refuses or ignores then I will RfC.11:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Caption Competition

 * moved to:

User:CheNuevara/brag

PS. Where do you want your Coffee? Dfrg.m s c 1. 2 . 3 06:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Congrats on winning the prize with me! Who woulda thought we would tie considering mine weren't even as funny as yours?? Great work CN... Spawn Man 23:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura stuff
I don't think I've ever dealt with someone as hard to reason with as Whiffle. He's not interested in working anything out at all, but rather seems to be interested in talking about how much he knows and how stupid the rest of us are. I'm being a good admin, though, and letting him dig himself a hole he can't get out of before I do anything. Any ideas for how to reason with him? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  18:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection
I didn't mean to intrude on or disrupt your mediation, which does look productive. I had noticed a long discussion recently over the propriety of editing while in mediation, followed by Whiffle's major edits, and altogether it seemed like a good idea to cut short the bickering and edit warring. If Whiffle is reasonable I'm sure the protection can be lifted quickly and if not a block may be called for. Either way, feel free to remove the protection yourself at any time, or you can ask me to do so. Thanks for mediating. Cheers, -Will Beback 18:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I don't see any new discussion since the protection was placed. Should we remove it? -Will Beback 00:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that would be a bad idea, given Whiffle's attitude (as I see it). I thinnk the main reason the discussion there has died is because trying to discuss something with Whiffle is like trying to talk to a swarm of bees: sure, they may hear what you're syaing, but that doesn't stop them from buzzing all over and doing whatever they want. I've asked another admin to take a look at Whiffle's edits to determine what, if anything should be done about his less-than productive track record so far. He's only been here for a week, and nothing productive has come of anything he's done, as far as I can tell. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  00:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Walter Andrew Stephenson
Please see BenBurch 00:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

 * Hello CheNuevara. I can see that you are busy, but I have a question, which I asked on the discussion page of the Mediation Cabal a couple of days ago. My question is, if I want to join the Cabal (if it exists that is) what do I have to do aside from adding the page to my watchlist. I read your arguments with Whiffle, and I'd like to help out; the problem is I don't know how. Here's a link to the discussion page of the Mediation Cabal in case you would rather answer there. | A ndonic O   Talk  19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you Che, for your message; it cleared a few things up. However, you said some people take cases and others take requests. What is the differance? I'll add my name to the list, but I think I'll just be reading for a while, in order to learn. I'd appreciate any occaisional help, but this is fine for now. Thanks! | A ndonic O   Talk  21:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, by the way, does "Active" mean I'm on the computer, or that I have a case? | A ndonic O   Talk  21:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the (much needed) help. I'll join as inactive. | A ndonic O   Talk  23:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Omura article and Crum's underhand actions
Dear Che, I have replied to you on the Omura Talk page. Please forgive my repeated quoting of your words, but there is a limit to how much time and effort I can spend catering to underhand, dishonest people. Crum is a very devious character willing to lie if necessary as he has done many times - just look on the Talk page how he tried to pretend he never agreed to anything in the last round of mediation. The only other possible explanation is that he has a serious medical condition like Alzheimer's and cannot remember things properly. Like you, I and others have lives to lead. Liars cant be tolerated forever. I hope you understand. Richardmalter 13:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry Che, life is short and there is much to do; disagreements are one thing to be expected in life - even protracted ones; underhand and complete lies (that can be verified 100% objectively in a few seconds of referring to archives and even the current Talk page) are another. I cannot waste mine because of out and out liars. I will quote you if necessary. I think that if you were in my position you would not do too dissimilarly.Richardmalter 21:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments moved
As per my talk page guidelines (above), the commend which previously occupied this spot has been moved here.


 * This is a safe space. You can say whatever you like on this page without fear of retribution or attack, from me or other users.

21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Che I have requested Arbitration because of exactly the problems you wrote. I understand your wish to remain neutral, but what you said you said, very accurately, and your words provide a neutral 3rd party comment during mediation of the underlying situation. I will not pretend that you did not know what you were saying.Richardmalter 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Involved_parties

RfC
I opened an RfC regarding Fairness And Accuracy For All, it is located at Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All and would appreciate you comments if you have any. This message is being posted to anyone's talk page who it seems has had much contact with the user in question.

I know you interaction has been breif but its also been neutral. --Nuclear Zer0 22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to give you an update I have little to do with Democratic Underground and the issue with FAAFA that I have takes place mainly outside of that. I had compiled a page following what I felt were bad edits to a noticeboard and have kept it since, this was while he was editing under . After he changed his name I kept the list of incidents and it just happens that many of the people coincide with that articles as they seem to know eachother off wiki, or butted heads in the past. That is why it seems odd that I am introducing it. I am not involved in the Democratic Underground debate at all, the issue stems from outside of it, but contains many of the same people. --Nuclear Zer0 03:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Attention
Your attention is requred at Talk:Democratic Underground. JBKramer 20:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
You are far too kind, CheNuevara. Your comments were so nice, thank you for them! -- Nataly a 23:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC
Thanks for your unbiased input on the RfC, Che. I'm somewhat unfamiliar with these. Let me ask -- Is it helpful for me to point out the similar violations of my accusers, to illustrate that this was a two-way street?

Here for instance, is documentation of one editor and tormentor creating a sock puppet, solely to taunt and bait me, and even admitting to it.

tbeatty's taunting sock - Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 07:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually it was created in response to your special friends enemies list. You were lacking a Super Friends enemies list so I added a user to it.--Tbeatty 07:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you intend to deal with the dispute, or just the users slapping at eachoter? JBKramer 17:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Nice to know that someone agrees with me occasionally. BTW, why are people so hung up about their edit counts? Get over 500/1000 - it all becomes are bit irrelevant, no? Also BTW, you might like to know that I voted for Kim (Bruning) in the board elections, so no hard memories of the minor scrap at your old RFA, right? Cheers, Moreschi 21:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Help and Advice on Starwood Mediation?
I sort of got a recommendation from User:Addhoc that you could possibly give some advice on the Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival. Mediation seems rather stalled for the moment and we have no mediator in charge. Related to this is Requests for comment/Mattisse as well. I'm uncertain whether we should move on to WP:RFAR or what. Since things seem to be heading to another edit war, I'd really like some input from a more experienced hand at this. We really need a help with this situation. If nothing else, we could use feedback on this situation if you have the time to do so. Also FYI, I'm also mentioning this to User:Ars Scriptor, another recommendation from Addhoc. Thanks. --Pigman (talk &bull; contribs) 19:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Che -- I think the Starwood spamming is clear case of policy violation, therefore not a case for mediation. I think Ars Scriptor's comments about WP:BAND, and how that is a precedent for no internal links from perfomers/presenters to the festival, are relevant. I don't think this case should have ever gone to mediation. As I seriously doubt anyone who is familiar with WP linkspam policies would support this google bombing attempt, how could a "neutral" mediator who is also familiar with WP policy even be found? In addition to WP policy, I think the consensus on the charges against Matisse show community consensus that it was a clear-cut case of spamming. So, my question is, what's the best way to deal with the spammers at this point? --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫ ♦ ♫ 23:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

More on Starwood Mediation
Thank you for your offer to mediate the Starwood mediation (is that a proper sentence?) I would welcome you in that role. I am willing to attend in good faith. I won't throw tantrums. I'll listen to advice. I'll try to be civil at all times and will apologize if I overstep civil discourse. (Now if everyone would just agree to these things as well...) --Pigman (talk &bull; contribs) 04:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Che - Just to clarify my statement above: I didn't mean to declare that the attempted mediation should be abandoned. Rather that, given some of what has (or has not) transpired, I question whether it was the most effective or appropriate approach to the situation. Perhaps the RfC should have been done first, and maybe the problem could have been taken care of that way. But if you think you can get mediation to work with the parties involved, I certainly welcome you to come on in as mediator :-) --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫ ♦ ♫ 06:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer of mediation. Might I ask a question regarding how you might conduct the mediation? Will you insist that the mediation address current issues? What will be your policy toward parties who raise user conduct accusations that have already been list on WP:AN/I or in user conduct RfC's? Please let me know if you have plans to deal with such situations. Thanks. Sincerely --BostonMA talk 12:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be absolutely thrilled to have a mediator actually mediate the issues. &mdash;Hanuman Das 13:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I withdraw from the proposed meditation and also completely from the situation so please don't refuse the medation b/c of me. I proved to myself and at my own expense that User:Mattisse gets to play by different rules than the rest of us, and I make it a policy not to play with a stacked deck. If you don't know what I mean, I was indef blocked for making a single joke edit (non-abusive, non-libellous and non-ban-evading) with an alternate account, while User:Mattisse is still here after using 18 socks, some of them abusively. Please carry on without me, I'll not impede the mediation or remove or replace Starwood links, though I reserve the right to edit the articles in other ways. Sincerely, &mdash;Hanuman Das 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your mediation is fine with me. Will you open a new mediation page for it? Will it be MedCab or MedCom? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Che - I would be happy to have you mediate the issue. Unlike BostonMa, however, I do believe that a look at the history of this issue is important, and the behavior of the people who have initiated it. I feel that my actions have been steered by the very people who turned around and objected to them, some of whom have made some rather nasty accusations and assumptions of bad faith, and now seem to want to set the bars much higher on the standards for inclusion of input than usual. Kathryn's statement above is an example: 3 statements on the futility or inappropriatness of the mediation, 3 accusations of spamming and one of "google-bombing" in a single paragraph! My attempts to find a middle-ground position and my removal of external links seem to only encourage this. I would welcome an objective view. Rosencomet 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes to WikiProject Buffyverse (aka When Info Goes Poof)
I discovered this is already being discussed. :) And there is also a more appropriate place for the discussion as well. Feel free to delete away.  Not sure how to remove this completely from your talk page.  Sorry for any inconvience. QuinnZadok 14:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Future of Adopt-a-user
Hi there - with Flameviper leaving Adopt-a-user for the next generation to take on, and your obvious interest in the project, I was hoping you would find to comment and help out with some suggestions for the future of the project. Please see Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-User. Many thanks Lethaniol 15:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwood meditation
Thanks! And nobody else had posted yet. I love it when I get to define the discourse before everybody starts accusing each other ;-) Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

neutrally and succinctly?
I'm reluctant to respond to Pigman's post on the mediation site since you asked us not to, but I think he's straying into motives and away from the issue, and using negative terms like "gratuitous" and "with little regard" (unlike the other contributors so far). I'm not whining, I just hate to leave his statement unchallenged (which I could do on several points). Rosencomet 19:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your concerns, and they will be addressed, but everyone needs to be on the same page first. The pertinent issues will be discussed, just not quite yet. - Che Nuevara 19:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I shall be patient, though it isn't my best feature. :-) I guess I was just a bit shaken by the success of those who wished to drive Hanuman Das away from the issue; I have a great deal of respect for him and his contributions. Waiting is. Rosencomet 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Participation of Hanuman Das
Hi, in this comment left on your talk page, Hanuman Das states that he will disengage from the Starwood controversy. Yet, in this comment made subsequently, on Rosencomet's page, Hanuman Das states that he intends to vote Keep in any related AfD's. Could you request Hanuman Das to clarify whether he will, or will not, engage in further conflicts on related to Rosencomet? Thank you. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 22:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to clarify for you. I have withdrawn from the mediation, which to date has not concerned whether any articles should be deleted; there has been no discussion of deletion of anything, it has never been on the table. What has been on the table is external and internal linking. I will leave those alone. AFAIK, editors are free to vote and comment as they will in AfDs - I have never seen that challenged as part of a mediation process. I don't believe that editors in mediation can vote to delete an article without putting it out for AfD comment by the whole community. That is, mediation and deletion are completely different spheres of action which operate by their own rules. I don't think that voting keep in an AfD is to engage in conflict. It is simply an expression of opinion which is taken together with other opinions to determine a result. I will not give up my right to express that opinion simply b/c BostonMA chose to intimidate me into withdrawing from mediation by filing a sockpuppet accusation and repeatly tagging my user page to the extent that I almost got indef blocked over an intentionally obvious joke. Cheerio! &mdash;Hanuman Das 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * All registered editors entitled to give their opinion on an AfD. Similarly, all editors are entitled to participate in mediation.  Hanuman Das, you are welcome to participate in this mediation.  You are free to walk away if you choose.  However, if you plan on maintaining involvement with the articles, I think the mediation would be more worthwhile if you participated.  (Che Neuvera, please let me know if you would prefer that I not communicate with Hanuman Das on your talk page.)   Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 03:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mattisse
I'm not sure what's going on here, but I feel that I must point this out as it is relevant to the Starwood mediation. Please take a look at this comment by Mattisse to Paul Pigman. It looks innocent enough, but to one who knows the history of Mattisse's abuse of sockpuppets, it is clearly a disingenuous comment. The article was started by Flinders, who was shown by CheckUser to be a sockpuppet of Mattisse by User:Rdsmith4. At that time, sockpuppets of Mattisse created several hoax articles intended to discredit the other Starwood articles. Another two were Anne Hill and Ann Hill. To now bring this article to the attention of Paul Pigman as if it had been created by Rosencomet as part of the Starwood set of articles is clearly manipulatory. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't see any place where this was confirmed by a CheckUser. I see that Netsnipe tagged Flinders as a sock, but where is that backed up?  The RFCU for Mattisse did not list Flinders as a possible sock.  There is no RFCU for Flinders.  Please point me in the right direction. --  Ars Scriptor  15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found it. -- Ars Scriptor  15:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I find this to be rather bizarre, and a good example of how the folks on the other side of this issue have had a pattern of manipulating things either for their own amusement or to put the actual editors of the articles in question in a bad light. I had nothing to do with the Musart article, which was created by "Flinders", apparently a sock-puppet. He/she also created the Ann Hill & Anne Hill articles, claiming she was a "frequent speaker at the Starwood Festival" (she exists, but has never appeared at Starwood). At one point the name Anne Rice was changed to Anne Hill. (Someone also accused me of linking to and messing with the Andrew Cohen article, though as far as I know it was never linked to the Starwood page, nor did he appear there.)


 * I'm not saying Musart isn't deserving of an article, and I could create one, but this one had only two facts that were not false: the very first line ("Musart is a musical art company founded by Muruga Booker."), and the links to the Musart website. (Pigman, oddly enough, just took down those links.) The rest of the article seems to be a cut & paste job from part of the Starwood Festival article as it stood at the time of the Musart's article's creation. (Muruga Booker actually asked me about it in a conversation 2 days ago, assuming I had created it, and wondered why the content was so very wrong.) This kind of behavior - fake articles linked to Starwood, constant demands for citations, subsequent accusations that the citations constituted linkspam and google-bombing - all seems to have started with Matisse just 7 days after my first contribution to a Wikipedia article. Rosencomet 17:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Rosencomet, let us assume for the moment that someone has "manipulat[ed] things either for their own amusement or to put the actual editors of the articles in question in a bad light." Would that mean that all of "the folks on the other side of this issue have had a pattern of" doing so?  Your comment seems to insinuate that "the folks on the other side of the issue" are all bad people, therefore, the points that they raise should be discounted.  Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite right. I should have said "some of the folks". It's just so confusing not knowing who is a sock and/or egged on to weigh in by others. But admittedly, I was generalizing. And I never called them "bad people"; they might be good people who, in this instance, were engaging in bad behavior. Rosencomet 18:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) In the interest of transparency, can you (Ars Scriptor) post a link?
 * 2) I do not have the mechanisms to deal with previous user conduct. All I can do is insist that all users act appropriately from now on. If all users do so, then we should have no further problems. If some users act inappropriately, then other channels can be sought. Now that I've been supplied with this background information, let's focus on forward movement. - Che Nuevara  19:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry this is on your talk page. I support CheNuevara's first point particularly. While the RfC/Mattisse contained a number of accusations of sockpuppets, it was unclear to me which of these were actually confirmed. I know at least one was. Am I just not reading closely enough? --Pigman (talk &bull; contribs) 20:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There was never a formal checkuser request. The sockpuppetry was discovered sort of accidently by an admin with CheckUser privileges while investigating an unrelated issue. The only report was a notice by that user to Mattisse the use of socks had been detected: here. I agree with Ekajati that this IS a current behavior issue. While the created of the faked page occured in the past, bringing it up just occured recently. &mdash;Hanuman Das 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link. I agree that it is an issue, and I will keep an eye out and keep it in mind. However, until I see something that looks disruptive or in bad faith, there isn't a whole lot I can do. - Che 20:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In the interest of full disclosure, another Starwood article has been discovered written by one of my suspected sockpuppets: Sincerely,  Mattisse 23:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, there was a Checkuser:

These are the ones I am aware of. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 02:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin Filed July 26
 * 2) Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse filed September 6
 * 3) Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (2nd) filed September 6
 * 4) Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd)- filed September 21
 * 5) Requests for checkuser/Case/Mattisse filed October 25
 * And is it your honest contention that these users are not you? - Che Nuevara  02:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My truest recollection is what I wrote to BostonMA which formed the basis of the latest incident report on me: "Mattisse Reduc": Sorry. I am as confused as you probably are. Sincerely, Mattisse 02:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * and since you reply with what seems like sarcasm to me (I know I am a joke and only "Mattisse Redux" and therefore am not a person to be taken seriously and a mere pretext for people to go on and on about other things):

(quote from Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival) which perhaps you should bother to check it out before you level more accusations:


 * 1) The sockpuppet situation is old news. All puppets have ceased operating. It have been confirmed at Requests for checkuser/Case/Mattisse that Timmy12, MaxReg are not a sockpuppet of mattise. Further the only confirmed sockpuppet User:Xampt was an account used for only three days for a total of 16 edits, the account was used to avoid the harrassesment, and did not break and wikipedia policies and guidelines. Administrators decided that no action was necessary.

I am ever hopeful that someone will act responsibly, even if perhaps not you as you seem satisfied with yourself currently at my expense. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Che, I thank you again for all your hard work. It is very much appreciated. I hope you'll find it in you to assume good faith and realize that all I want is a well sourced and balanced version, of this as well as every other WP article I touch. Of course my idea of 'balance' or 'source' may not be someone else's - I am far from thinking that I am always right. In fact, I hope that I am sometimes right, no more. I am also very open to ideas and criticism, although it does take time sometimes for me to become convinced and to change course. I do want to see neutral editors in the sense that they have no ax to grind, no conflict of interest. Dealing with COI-SI (conflict of interest single-issue) editors is very hard, if your target is to end up with a neutrally balanced result. But I think for WP to succeed, and I am sure all of us here want that, we cannot cave in to COI or special interest or any other pressure group for whom our own pillars of well sourced neutrality are not paramount, but their own interests. I think WP will live or die by editors' ability to fight (with civility) for what is right, not what is quick or easy. Thanks again, Crum375 22:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I believe that Crum cant rise above himself in a number of matters, and I have very little if any trust towards him/her. But I will try to continue to act in good faith towards him. Anyone that represents me in some way, that when I correct them, repeatedly does the same thing, for just one example, does not get much respect; someone that reverts his agreements gets even less. Someone that wants others not to act in one way then acts just like that gets a minus figure for trust. Someone that has a declared bias as Che noted, then denies it, get a bigger minus still. I think Crum is the antithesis of the WP spirit as intended. Maybe he/she will prove me wrong in the future. So far has failed any such test.Richardmalter 08:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Richardmalter 08:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * moved to:

User:CheNuevara/brag

Starwood Link History
A couple of fellow editors suggested that I appraise you of these facts. I realize I have already posted some of this information, but for the sake of organizing it I will put it all here together. I'm sorry if it's long.

The following information is just to show that while Matisse was wildly tagging articles linked to Starwood Festival with "citation needed" tags, later to call on many editors to help in a campaign to delete them, then have them taken down as linkspam and google-bombing, she was ALSO CREATING articles with links to Starwood Festival herself, then calling them to the attention of other editors as examples of how there were too many articles linked to it and that I was "out of control". I believe that most of the objections by editors other than Matisse and socks of Matisse (who have weighed in multiple times in discussions about both the links and the notability of individual articles I've written in order to create the illusion that she had major support in the Wiki community) were swayed, in great part, by this campaign to create a "Major Problem" where one did not exist. (Ironic, since a running theme of the event is conspiracy theory & the Illuminati...)

1. The Musart article (linked to Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration, and WinterStar Symposium) was created August 25th by Flinders, a sock of Matisse, 12 days after my first Wiki input. The Answers.com text mentioned below about Musart (point 6) is obviously cribbed from the Wiki article she created, yet she speaks as if she "found" this evidence that this issue is not minor!

2. The "What Witches Do" article was created on September 3rd by LiftWaffen, another Matisse sock. She returned the next day to add a link to Association for Consciousness Exploration.

3. Andrew Cohen, mentioned below by Matisse on Salix Alba's page as a "Starwood Speaker", has never appeared at Starwood nor has his page been linked to the Starwood page.

4. There are links to Musart on the "Chalino Sánchez" and "Lucero" articles that I believe are incorrect, and probably refer to the record company DiscosMusart, which has no Wiki article.

5. Here is what Matisse said to BostonMa about Musart in November:

hopeless mediation


 * Hi. I wrote a question on the Starwood Mediation page and got an unsatisfactory answer from Rosencomet. Plus I notices another article waiting in the wings: Musart. Do you think we should ask for another mediator? Ours seems to be missing in action. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 01:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I must agree. It is hopeless and would be a waste of your time. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

6. This was posted on Salix Alba's talk page the same day:


 * Hi again! Check out Musart. it is waiting in the wings to have bunches of names added. Mattisse(talk) 01:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Check this out [16] from Answers.com If, by chance, you think this is minor. Mattisse(talk) 03:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And 8 days later:


 * Maybe you would weigh in on the Andrew Cohen talk page (a Starwood Festival speaker) as there is a discussion on what type of links to include as external links. The particular link in question may not be a good example to defend, but at least it's the start of a general discussion. Mattisse(talk) 16:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

7. Now this one was on Pigman's talk page just a few days ago. I've included Ekajati's comment.


 * I just ran across this: Musart. The links at the bottom are bad. One goes nowhere. The other pertains if anything to this: Musart Records -- which I wrote (not very well) trying to sort out the problem regarding various (legitimate) artists whose articles list this label -- none of which are in that list on Musart. What to do? Perhaps you know. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As you can see, it's the usual Starwood Festival crowd listed. I wonder if this is hopeless. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, now this is not funny, Mattisse. That article, as you have to know, was started by Flinders, who was confirmed by CheckUser as one of your sockpuppets. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

8. This non-explanation of the creation of the Musart article was posted on BostonMa's talk page. I've included Hanuman Das' input:


 * I clicked on the name, Flinders, and it was identified as a sockpuppet of my account. I don't know what else to say. I was not aware of all the accounts identified as mine - rather I should say I recognise the names now but I don't always know what they have done. I am not clear what was going on at that time. At the time I explained my role in the matter. The result is though that I am not always aware when one of my sockpuppets created an article. If will explain the situation in any degree of detail you desire. I don't know what level of detail is appropriate here. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Further explanation: That I personally did not create the sockpuppets but they were created on my computer, as proved by CheckUser. There was an unusual sitation. Relatives, including my daughter and her children, suddenly were in my house. In the middle of this was when I was doing backlogs in the wikify bin (to get away from real life stress) and AFD'd Philip Farber. This was just after Netsnipe had identified a suite of similar articles and ADFed the whole suite. I asked him what to do but he was busy with his admin election. I used bad judgment and tagged too many articles. 999 attacked me. I became upset, being already upset because of outside events. I talked about it too much to my visitors, none of whom were involved with Wikipedia. I don't know really what happened. Part of what was going on here meant that I was not home always. I do know that I left my granddaughter alone, at that time not realising that Wikipedia was such a dangerous place, so she did somethings on Wikipedia unsupervised. I guess I should look back and see exactly what. Someone emailed me that she put her age on her user page and that I should delete that. I tried but was not allowed. Then an admin believed she was my granddaughter and did delete it or do something with it. To tell you the truth, I don't really want to know what these various accounts did because it starts to give me bad feelings about my family -- whether they were trying to harm me or help me I don't know. And it has affected our relationship since then. Let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 17:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please excuse me for butting in here, but this is the same excuse she used for the previous sockpuppet incident (pre-Rosencomet). See Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin. I believe that User:Salix alba was involved in that incident. —Hanuman Das 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked at the discussion and I don't quite get what I did that was so wrong. I asked Paul Pigman a question. At the time I didn't know it was a Flinders article. Flinders did whatever in the past. In any case, I would not have done anything to a Starwood article myself. That is why I asked someone. If I repeat the same story regarding events around that time, what else should I do? It's only because Musart Records came up on my watch list as "unsourced" that I even looked at it. Because I write and edit so many record label articles, I did not get the connection at first. I do not understand this place. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

9. I must say that this is a pretty bizarre situation. Matisse has used sock-puppets for a long time to disrupt the work of a number of editors in various ways, and seems to openly admit it here, and I find that strange enough (since, perhaps because I'm a newcomer, I just don't see what she gets out of this kind of behavior except sowing anger and frustration among hard-working volunteers), but phrases like "I was not aware of all the accounts identified as mine - rather I should say I recognise the names now but I don't always know what they have done." or "I am not always aware when one of my sockpuppets created an article" make me wonder how she can EVER be held accountable for what she does. It sounds bi-polar to me (I'm not diagnosing, just saying what it sounds like). She seems not to know what she has done, or perhaps even what she is doing. In a different way, I find the attempt to shift the blame to unspecified family members even more disturbing.

Matisse seems to have a talent for creating trouble and drawing well-meaning people into the fray. I don't see how the issue under mediation can be discussed without at least airing these facts, and allowing those who have been swayed to believe that there is a serious situation that must be nipped in the bud to understand that, at least to some extent, it has not only been exaggerated but increased and manipulated by the very person that brought it to their attention and enlisted their help. Rosencomet 00:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for your efforts with respect to the impenetrableswampsinkholeblackholefromwikpediahell Yoshiaki Omura entry. You were patient, dedicated, determined, and steadfast. These things, in my estimation, matter far more than any entry. Thank you. GenghizRat 00:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rosencomet mediation
Hi. I would like to call your attention to this comment made by User:Rosencomet which reads in part.
 * "I must say, with all due respect, that it seems some folks have decided the entries should not be there, THEN looked for a rationale to support this, one that has changed several times."

I feel that this remark reflects a lack of assumption of good faith, and is unhelpful. Could you please remove it. Thanks. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 19:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added this comment:

I apologize to anyone who took my general statement personally. I did not mean to assert that there was an INTENTIONAL attempt to contest posted information without what those doing it consider a good reason. However, I do see that this mediation has strayed from a discussion of the validity of the citations and links that inspired it to issues of POV, conflict of interest, whether the event is commercial or not, and whether those appearing there are paid or not and in what manner. None of this is in keeping with the list of pertinent issues Che offered at the onset of the mediation. Rosencomet 20:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura Arbitration
As per request: Richardmalter has requested arbitration. GenghizRat 05:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, I am sure you dont hold speaking straightforwardly a negative quality. I was surprised to read your statement about the discussion around the stub and Starting Over. 1) I think the record very clearly shows that i did agree to this, and 2) that Crum375 did not - or more accurately, did not keep to his agreement as you yourself noted.

3) I then wanted you to put in a direct quote of virtually word for word what you had written anyway, that is all.

If this is not your perception, then I must in my mind put it down to twiki-type communication that is the problem re this; because this is what I said and meant; and Crum was equally clear.

Is this not a true and accurate account? Richardmalter 08:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Daniel575


Your bot "notified" User:Daniel575 of an article issue. Daniel575 has been indefblocked. - Che Nuevara  00:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for "notifying" me of this. - PocklingtonDan 08:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha I didn't mean to be facetious -- I just figured he probably wouldn't get the message ;) - Che Nuevara  17:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 17:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Concordia Newsletter
NEWSLETTER

Concordia is currently trying to relaunch. I, and all the members of the ex-council, wish to welcome new members to the group. We are a group who aim to promote remaining civil, in an environment where messages can easily be interpretated wrongly.

Help out now!
We are a community, so can only work though community contributions and support. It's the helping that counts.
 * Try and help people remain civil! Talk to them, and help them in any way possible. Do not be afraid to use the talk page.
 * Give people the Civility Barnstar.
 * Make and spread some Wikitokens so people know there are people to help if they want assistance.
 * Add banners or logos to your userpage to show your support.
 * Suggest some ideas! Add 'em to the talk page.

Decision Making
The council expired one month ago, but due to the current position of the group the current council will remain until the position of the group can be assessed, and whether it would be sensible to keep Concordia going. For most decisions, however, it will be decided by all who choose to partake in discussions. I am trying to relaunch because of the vast amounts of new members we have received, demonstrating that the aims are supported.

If you wish to opt of of further talk-page communications, just let us know here.

- Ian ¹³  /t  20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC). Kindly delivered by MiszaBot.

Re: Omura mediation
I responded to your query that you placed on my talk page. My response can be found here. If the message isn't on my talk page, please see the archives for the time period of your original message. Feel free to post any further comments on my talk page, and I'll respond to you as soon as possible. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Omura Arbitration Request
Sounds like you're a little busy. You might be interested in this arbitration request, which mentions you as part of it's justification. Antonrojo 03:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)