User talk:SlamDiego/Archive 8

Re: What th—?
Yes, that is with the Mediation Cabal, which is not within our work. You don't have to be a formal mediator to work for them. Have a nice night. ^ demon [omg plz] 06:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

your edit to We (novel)
Hi, chronological order here is a good idea. Do you have a verifiable source stating the relation between We (novel) and Anthem (novella)? I hoped Anthem (novella) would cite a source, but instead had to tag the relevant section with. --Jtir 19:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a ref to the article. I could find more with a little time.  In any case, the relationship should be fairly transparent to anyone who has read both, and especially to one who understands the Great “Really Should” of Ayn Rand's writing.  The Night of January the 16th is about the debate that she felt really should have been had about Ivar Kreuger;  Anthem is the novella that she felt Zamyatin really should have written; The Fountainhead is about a “really should” Wright; Love Letters manages to be both a “really should” Pity My Simplicity and a “really should” Cyrano de Bergerac; and Atlas Shrugged is about a “really should” strike (and includes a “really should” Robin Hood, in the form of Ragnar Dannesjköld).  And she liked the (awful) I, the Jury because it was a “really should” Maltese Falcon.  During her early years in Hollywood, she wrote a treatment about a “really should” blackmailer.  Her short story “The Simplest Thing in the World” is about a writer who proceeds very much along such lines. —SlamDiego 22:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! One reference for one sentence is fine IMO. Anthem (novella) may need more. --Jtir 23:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but I have no plans to jump into the ugly fights between the Randroids and the clueless Rand-bashers! —SlamDiego 23:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Phi Kappa Psi
I was just curious as to what has happened with the exceedingly long issue on the Phi Kappa Psi membership thing. That wasn't very eloquent of me, but you understand. I thought there would be a mediation going on, but I haven't heard anything. I'd be more than willing to help out, but I hope I haven't missed anything. Jmlk17 06:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I posted a request. When I heard nothing, I queried the Committee chairperson.  So far, that also has not produced a response. —SlamDiego 22:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are still interested in mediation for the Phi Psi article, I noticed that my previous request has been deleted from the archive. Samwisep86 03:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'm fighting a bit of flu right now, but I'll resubmit in a day or two. —SlamDiego 05:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, it was again rejected. Samwisep86 22:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that nothing is too ridiculous for Wikipedia. I have asked the committee chairperson to restore the request. —SlamDiego 05:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Alrighty...thanks for the clearup buddy :) Jmlk17 05:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Creators who do not acquiesce to fan fiction
Hello. I have nominated a category you have created, Category:Creators who do not acquiesce to fan fiction, for deletion. The discussion is here. Kolindigo 22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice! I've commented to the relevant discussion. —SlamDiego 03:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me about the discussion! I've commented and raised a defense for the category--the arguements against it are pretty weak and the category really needed something said for it. Hopefully it will be worth something. Thanks again! Irish♣Pearl 20:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:132.241.246.111
Oops, forgots to undo the edit. It has been done. G1 gg  y  !  03:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 00:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

I have agreed to mediate this dispute. Please take a look at the preliminary questions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Phi Kappa Psi. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Burntapple
You might be right... it's looking likely. The MO is very similar and the political bias is the same. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't tell us anything useful... since the IP address is from a range that is used by a consumer ISP. In addition, the system is not setup to permit that kind of searching (due to privacy concerns). ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 17:18, 1 June 2007 (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. -- SuggestBot 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

“unsourced”
—SlamDiego&#8592;T 14:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't confuse a datum lacking a footnote with one that is necessarily unsourced. (Note now that most of the article on Willem Mengelberg remains unfootnoted.)
 * Please use the tag, rather than summarily removing content that is-or-is-believed to be unsourced.  The tag can provoke helpful edits from users who would otherwise not know that they can make a contribution, and it means that intermediate edits don't foul what should be a simple process.
 * yes, but there's no sense in permitting more unreferenced data just because the rest of it is unsourced. anyway the point is moot, as i provided the necessary link myself. --emerson7 | Talk 16:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You provided a footnote from a source that was already provided at the end of the article (by me). Meanwhile, the rest of the article is unfootnoted, yet sourced. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 11:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ...same net effect. --emerson7 | Talk 11:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A rather silly net effect: A footnote for the pension datum, and only for the pension datum. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 11:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)