User talk:Tristessa de St Ange/Archive 8

Neuro-Linguistic Programming Article
Hi Nicholas,

Thank you for your contribution to the article. IMHO in looks much better now and the definition, fist section, is a lot more balanced than it was previously. --Jeannmb (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jeannmb. I'm glad. There is still, however, much to be done; that the entire subject of NLP itself is glossed over is quite bizarre. There is actually no description whatsoever of NLP techniques and approaches. The article discusses in effect the diaspora around NLP, but not the actual subject. Whether more discussion of NLP methods and models should go in the main article or in a fork, I am not sure. At bare minimum, however, there should be some sort of summary, at least, to provide some context. For what it's worth, I know only quite little about NLP (except having once gone to an NLP practitioner with whom I had an extremely negative experience); but when it comes to the article, I accept nothing less than neutrality for both sides. Your expertise is extremely valuable and I look forward to your assistance in making further improvements. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

re mediation case
Oh right, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-14/User:Herostratus/Hardcore_images.

Well, I was never able to persuade the other user to sign on, so I guess its a dead letter.

The issue was over some changes he wanted to make. He never did get to make the changes he wanted, he was more or less "outvoted" by the people on the essays's talk page and gave up, I guess.

But if he wants to revive the case, I am willing to revive the case. Since I "won" my point in other ways, and since I think his proposed changes were silly, I'd rather not, and think it would be waste of time now. But if the other user want to revive the case and you want to accept it, I am willing to do it and cooperate fully. Herostratus (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Since he's not provided any participation on the MedCab case thus far and not even shown any sort of willingness to enter mediation (I note his page says he is on a wikibreak), I will close this case without prejudice to you being able to file another MedCab request if you feel it is necessary in the future. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Your userpage (re: MedCom)
I enjoyed the snippet about MedCom that is on your userpage. Please do not ever hesitate to charge in, on policy or otherwise. We're a quiet bunch, but when discussion does have to take place, the more views the better :)! I hope you're enjoying mediating your first formal case. Regards, AGK  [&bull; ] 14:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Nicholas, just a heads-up that, when you're closing cases, the indexing system is a little different from MedCab: specifically, these two changes are needed (although, as the Bot takes care of most of the paperwork, nothing else is). Regards, AGK  [&bull; ] 21:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Cunard
Would you provide assistance to at User talk:Cunard? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-04-03/Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011
You welcome thoughts on this. Mine are that you are jumping up to this much too quickly, and I don't think you really understand the issue yet. We have already discussed mediation/closure of this phase, and have Newyorkbrad and WJBScribe lined up to do this (and actually discussed among ourselves about who would do this). We really do not need further mediation here. I would explain further, but as I said, this is going way too fast, and needs to be considered much more carefully. So for now I would appreciate if you put this on hold, rather than offering (although appreciated) to mediate this yourself. I really need some time to collect my thoughts. You may also be interested in this discussion which Beeblebrox neglected to mention, where we discussed who would close the request (this was also previously discussed at the RfC), and where I, and other opposition, are compared to terrorists, something Beeblebrox apparently has considered in the past, and appears to be what prompted him to open the request. Sorry for the rushed comment, as I say I really need time to collect my thoughts, you guys are moving way too fast. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts, Kingpin13. Please don't worry. I will investigate the dynamics of the RfC fully as this progresses and if it does indeed transpire that no further mediation is necessary (and the requesting parties have specified this), it will be either held or closed as such. However, I should say that the requesting individuals for the Mediation Cabal case are permitted to request the Mediation Cabal to look into mediating it; but please, don't be concerned this means I am instantly assuming a general agreement from RfC participants to have the Mediation Cabal mediate. If there is no consensus for mediation it will, as I said, be closed as such, or else the mediation will be confined to being between the parties that wish to mediate. Nobody is forced to participate in the Mediation Cabal process. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the cross post, however, I have removed it for now, as I wish to have absolutely nothing to do with this pathetic attempt to circulate the consensus we already established on the RfC talk page about how we would close this RfC. This request is a display of certain users acting on a whim and completely ignoring what we already discussed and decided on, instead imposing their own personal views on what the object of the RfC is. Obviously I am still rather flustered about this, I suppose I'm not at my best composure after being accused of holding hostages and being likened to a terrorist. I am upset that you plan to plough on with this, as I said I do not think that is the best way forward. Instead it should be put on hold until you have a clearer understanding of the dynamics of this case, which I do not feel you currently grasp, as evidenced by your approach to this. I appreciate that you feel you should be able to "learn on the job" as it were, but I am of the strong opinion that this will result in conflict with the already agreed upon course. Please please please place this on hold until you have properly reviewed if it actually needs further mediation (which I assure you it does not, and will simply lead to more harm being done) - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of between a rock and a hard place with this. The trouble is, the Mediation Cabal doesn't have a rule (unlike the MedCom) that says that all participants must sign agreement to mediation; therefore, I can't just put it on hold based on your objection to the request. The parties who have communicated on the page do have a right to have their case considered by a mediator and discussed. Arguably, also, it is not in fact up to me as a mediator to understand the dynamics of the case; it is up to the parties to discuss it amongst themselves, albeit in a structured (or semi-structured) fashion that produces more driving force than heat. I really do appreciate your concern and for all I know you may be right, but it would be remiss of me to suddenly put what appears to be an urgent request for assistance on hold simply because of your misgivings. If it is apparent that there is no mediation work to be done, or it would be harmful, I will terminate the mediation. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, how about a compromise. I will post on the MedCab page to say that a view has been put forward that consensus has already been reached as per the talk page for the subsequent actions to take on the RfC, and state that until this has been investigated fully the mediation will be kept open, but no direct involvement with the RfC talk page should occur nor any presentation of proposals for action to take on the RfC. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be very much appreciated, as I say the problem here is that everything is going way too fast. Yes, I agree entirely with your point that they "have a right to have their case considered by a mediator," however, this particular case is full of controversy, and - no offence to you - an arbitrarily selected user mediating is not going to make the cut. It is of extreme importance to me that it is mediated in such a way that all participants agree on via consensus. This mediation request did not reflect the wishes or feeling of the participants. Newyorkbrad seemed perfect for this, indeed even Beeblebrox supported having him close the RfC. I feel that we should leave the mediation/closure up to him. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, in which case, there may be a case to be made for this going to WP:RFM if it's mediated at all by a process rather than the MedCab. (The only trouble with that is, ironically, you'd probably get me again.) But, are you aware that it is general Wikipedia precedent that users cannot select their mediators (it is specifically in the mediation policy that they can't), no more they can select the members of the ArbCom who decide their case? If there is a contingent of editors who wish to apply to one of the WP:DR processes on their own steam aside from a page discussion, they aren't doing anything wrong to request dispute resolution. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I better chime in here since I think my comments are the ones being brought up here. I will quote my initial comment in the string omitting words I've crossed out on that page.
 * "Heck, I wonder if anyone's made any comparison of the staunch objectors to a hostage situation. Think about it: 'If you do not hand over 10 million dollars, this fella here bites the bullet.' In this case, the captive is PC itself, and those in support of it are like the government agency receiving the threat. This is entirely extreme, but the debate over PC has been going almost like that: 'turn it off or we won't talk'. Again, this does not mean a certain view on my part, it's just an observation."
 * Now, my intent was not to compare 200 or more users to a group of terrorists (I did accidentally use that word at first, that's what is crossed out as withdrawn). However, Kingpin made a block threat calling it a personal attack.  I did have initial doubts about posting that comment, but decided to be bold and make the observation.  Beeblebrox agreed with my observation, and I think that is why the mediation appeared.  I'll await your further determination on what to do with it, and if it's determined unnecessary, I will accept your judgment.  CycloneGU (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Originally the quote read "terrorist group" as oppose to "hostage situation". CycloneGU did indeed strike this, saying at the same time as doing so that he stood by his analogy (which consisted of describing a situation wherein a person is blackmailing and threatening to murder (see the quote above) and using that as a way to describe the opposition). Naturally being compared with a terrorist (or alternatively, if that word was a "mistake," being compared to a person who blackmails and threatens murder (i.e. a terrorist)) was taken by me as an attack. And, as CycloneGU says (and I already stated), it does indeed appear that the mediation request was prompted by the discussion there, where Beeblebrox also agreed with CycloneGU's pre-struck comment about likening the opposition to terrorists. How or if this personal attack justifies the request, I am unclear on. - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to enter a statement/concern that every time we seem to get to some sort of concensus about the "never-ending" RFC, an editor decides that we'll take the discussion to a new phase (disregard the strongly expressed viewpoints and insert "my" personal spin). I observe that this MedCab request comes without notifying several people who have expressed concern that this procedure is being "owned" by one editor and not accepting the fact that the community is expressing desire to modify the viewpoint the owner is taking. If this goes forward I would like to be included in the "review track" group that was suggested as I have concerns that in it's current owner's hands, this procedure (and subsequent "trials") will be viewed with hostility. Hasteur (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm. Alright, OK. It does seem like there is insufficient consensus for the mediation process to proceed at this stage. Thank you for informing me. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Corrected --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and that concern is shared by many. The issue is that the "phases" and what not have typically been on the whim of a single user, indeed that is how the mediation request also appears (Beeblebrox didn't take the time to discuss this with anyone else before filing the request). The straw poll following the "end" of the trial was set up solely by Off2riorob, the following straw poll by Jimbo Wales, the first two phases of the RfC were set up by no one except Beeblebrox. However, this phase which is currently live was all discussed beforehand, and was only added due to a consensus that it should be the next step forward. You can view all the discussion on the talk page, where we perfected the wording, options, format etc. - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am hoping to wake up shortly, and discover that the entire filed case and commentary is actually some horrid nightmare. :) --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a creative way to put it. As for me, the entire month of October was the nightmare. =)  CycloneGU (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, I suspect you weren't quite prepared for the knack we have of converting pages into foot-long debates in a matter of minutes ;). All the same, thanks for your input and friendly, welcoming manner. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of edit boxes edit an infinite number of Wikipedia: namespace pages, could they come up with a consensus on pending changes, do you think? :) --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Name the monkeys in question and we will analyze this. =D CycloneGU (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you can understand after today's events why I am completely exasperated with all this. I sincerely thank you for your willingness to step into what has obviously become a very contentious and confusing situation. As of now I am not participating in this process any further and as nobody seems to want to go the mediation route you may consider the request withdrawn. Thank you again for your efforts. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, a first on many measures. The first site-wide mediation attempt is now the shortest ever site-wide mediation attempt and first to be requested withdrawn within a day.  while I still think mediation at the discussion would be helpful, it sounds like many agree that the mediation channel isn't the place for this, I am now observing after not being involved for about an hour.  Getting slightly ridiculous, this is.  Hopefully we can proceed calmly forward. =)  CycloneGU (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

ramchandra Guha
YOU WROTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chimesmonster & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-02-01/Ramachandra_Guha

Please have a look at the mediation case page linked to above, and participate in the current stage of the mediation process if you wish. Of course, participation is completely optional, and if you don't want to take part in this mediation at any point, that's totally fine. If you have any questions or concerns relating to this dispute, the mediation, or the Mediation Cabal in general, please do let me know. Thank you very much. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at the mediation case page linked to above, and participate in the current stage of the mediation process if you wish. Of course, participation is completely optional, and if you don't want to take part in this mediation at any point, that's totally fine. If you have any questions or concerns relating to this dispute, the mediation, or the Mediation Cabal in general, please do let me know. Thank you very much. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)



{Reply.} the editor, spaceman miff , insists that these are my personal opinion , when I am qoting DIRECTLY from an interview given by the living person.

He is quite deliberately trying to potray som sort of malicious intent on my part, whereas I am reporting the stated Opinion of the BLP about a subject matter(hinduism / hindu culture) which i had spoke about with him(SS) already.

If it is the policy of wikipedia to simply stop mediation because one party has (autocratically) decided that there is nothing to discuss, then I too will have nothing to discuss.

If you so wish you can read the article from which I have quoted those words and put them in a (constructed sentence)form in wiki

"Ramachandra Guha is a known hindu baiter particularly terming it as ". . polluted from source to sea. .. Hindu civilisation practised the most degrading form of social behaviour called untouchability. Hindu civilisation oppressed its women. In Hindu civilisation there was division of manual labour and mental labour. "[4] " . . That idea that there was greatness in Indian or Hindu civilisation is. . . not true"

"

now the first objection was to the word hindu baiter, which i said i will remove. I then asked if the rest may be posted, which i was flatly denied.I hope it is clear to you , what the issue , is.

I thank you for interest in mediation. I only wished to make my point clear to those who wished to hear.

if it is declined, please bear in mind it is in protest that i accede.

RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediation
Should I assume that User: Avraham has refused your offer to mediate the "Mordecai Tendler" article? Perhaps record the responses (or lack of) that you received, on the mediation page? Koltorah (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've received no response whatsoever from . Unfortunately, it does seem that Avraham has failed to indicate acceptance of mediation within a reasonable timeframe. I hope, therefore, you won't mind me closing the case. If at a future time Avraham does wish to enter mediation with you and there continues to be a dispute that you'd like our help with, feel free to file another request. I hope you'll let me know if there's anything I can do for you. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, there was a response on the user's talk page that I didn't see, which is an explicit refusal of mediation. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind attention, and only request that you record what Avraham's response was to your attempt to mediate. That way if any future action is needed, there will be a clear record as to the history. Thanks again.

Koltorah (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews
A while back you did some audio recording for Wikinews? Do you have the spare time to consider doing this again? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Advocate Cabal
Advocate Cabal, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocate Cabal and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Advocate Cabal during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.  Klein zach  01:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Libya deletions
You wrote: Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Libya. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The links you deleted related to actions in Libya, many of which are accounts from professionals who have studied this area of the world. Given the current events in Libya, offering historical examples, before WWII then moving forward, offers an opportunity to understand the country, its development, the impact of other countries, and so on. Please do consider including the links. Thanks for your consideration. --Ciro612 (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands
Nicholas, I see that you took on this case, but it doesn't seem that mediation proceedings have begun. Are you mediating this case elsewhere, or are you planning on beginning soon, or do you need this case assigned to somebody else? Thanks, AGK  [&bull; ] 22:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also only been 9 hours since he accepted the case. – AJLtalk 22:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops! That's my mistake; I misread the timestamp of the comment that he was taking on the case. Sorry about that, Nicholas :). AGK  [&bull; ] 12:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nicholas: Now that almost ten days have elapsed, I re-iterate my enquiry about the status of these mediation proceedings. Will you be starting soon? AGK  [&bull; ] 22:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

request third party neutral at ANI dispute
Arilang1234 having a go at his POV pushing on the boxer rebellion article, claiming the content in the article is from "chinese high school text book", when not a single chinese or communist source was used in the article.

look at the section now- Talk:Boxer_Rebellion

report I made on his edits- he tries to link the black panthers, marxists, and vietnam war to anti imperialism on the boxer rebellion= User:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ/Report ANI

marxists, black panthers and vietnam protestors have something to do with anti imperialism in the boxer rebellion according to arilang

since benlisquare mentioned australia also includes anti imperialism in its textbooks, arilang1234 goes on to claim it must be because australia is a "socialist" country

Now he thinks dropping off conspiracy theories about high school text books, australia, marxists, black panthers, and vietnam on the boxer rebellion article and filing an ANI report after he was criticized for doing so is acceptable

Arilang1234 attempting wikilawyering and making threats when he was caught trolling

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Racist.2C_Cold_War_style_combative.2C_and_disruptive_behavior_of_user_.CE.94.CE.A5.CE.9D.CE.93.CE.91.CE.9D.CE.95_on_talkpage_of_Boxer_Rebellion. After his trolling on the Boxer rebellion talk page, Arilang1234 proceeded to file this ANI report complaining about me after I criticized him for his attempt at linking marxists, black panthers, and vietnam war to the Boxer rebels...]ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And he titled the ANI thread "racist", and proceeded to provide not one single piece of evidence that I said anything racist at all. One also has to wonder what the "cold war" he inserted into the title has to do with anything other than to grab attention.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Question about Mediation
Hi, I am a participant in the Senkaku dispute mediation case, but I'm not sure what exactly I'm suppose to do. Am i suppose to like contribute ideas for arugment for or against? I'm not sure where I put this information...where is it it appropriate to put this information?Phead128 (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (Reply from a mediator peer of Nicolas) Hi Phead. Mediation has not yet begun, so please stand by until the mediator directs otherwise. Although the mediation request has been accepted, there will continue to be a short delay until commencement of the actual mediation proceedings. Thank you for your patience. AGK  [&bull; ] 22:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Digital Media Arts College Page
HI,

My name is Omar Avila and I am the Marketing Manager of Digital Media Arts College. I recently made some changes to our page in Wikipedia, and I received a message of being flagged as advertising information. According to our Accreditation sources, I am obligated to update the information in the page, since it contains outdated and irrelevant information the college.

Please let me know which steps to take in order to make the necessary changes to the page.

Thank you,

Omar Avila oavila@dmac.edu Marketing Manager — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenestial12 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Birth date and age
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Birth date and age. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James Darcy Lever
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:James Darcy Lever. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Karrine Steffans
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Karrine Steffans. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bon Iver, Bon Iver
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bon Iver, Bon Iver. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stuart Flynn


The article Stuart Flynn has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The supplied links are either non-significant coverage, non-independent sources or deadlinks. The reality show appearance isn't sufficiently notable, the main associated band is a red link and the other bands listed are bands that other band mates are in, not him.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The-Pope (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I reckon you're right. There used to be more WP:RS refs available online than there are now, and those that would meet RS criteria are now either dead or archived material; he seems to have kind of receded in terms of stuff to reference and I can't think of any means where notability could be adequately asserted in the sense of WP:BAND/WP:BIO. Whilst it's likely now academic, what is very odd is the article history shows as though I'm the article creator when I'm certain I wasn't &mdash; yet I can't find any WP:REVDEL or WP:CP that might have happened, and there's no REVDELed revisions (maybe oversighted?). Not that it really matters, I suppose. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

MEDIATION REQUESTED FOR MYRTLE ALLEN ARTICLE
Another editor is reverting my edits, providing no explanation whatever, leaving a decidedly inferior version, replete with redundant text, cruft, misspellings, etc. If you check the diffs you will see my version is superior in every way: substantively, grammatically and syntactically; the last two probably due to the fact that English is not his first language.

More offensively, this editor refuses to explain, despite my reaching out to him on his talk page, his reasoning or to try to delineate where I am wrong or where it is simply a dispute between MOS styles. His reverts show he is not looking to improve the article but simply to revert wholesale my edits entirely. He may have an ownership problem with his articles, but, as you well know, no one owns an article on Wikipedia, regardless of how much hard work is put into editing.

I am leaving the article as is due to WP:3RR but I hope you can view the diffs and restore the superior version I crafted. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Rms: Thank you for your message. I'm sorry to hear that you're currently involved in an article content dispute with the other editor. If you'd like to make a request for a Wikipedia mediator to help you out, I'd recommend that you start first by making a request on Mediation Cabal - you can find how to make a request for mediation on the project page. The Mediation Cabal offers "informal" Wikipedia mediation, which means that mediation is run by volunteers rather than as a formal Wikipedia process, which allows more flexibility and open discussion than "formal" mediation (which is an official Wikipedia process). Mediators can't make a decision as to whose article version is better, or take sides in the dispute, however; mediators are, by their very role, required to be impartial, and the goal of mediation is to generate consensus between parties that disagree with each other. I wouldn't, as a result, be able to perform any article reversions or participate as an editor, and nor could any other Wikipedia mediator, but I am always ready to offer advice and support to editors on how to handle disputes. Let me know if there is anything I can help you with in this regard, but the ultimate essence is discussing issues about people's editing in a friendly and collaborative way rather than seeing them as combatants, and to discuss before you revert. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I can not help it, but the discussion page on Myrtle Allen is still blank but my talkpage is filled with PA's and insults. Not a way for a constructive discussion. Night of the Big Wind talk  23:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for advice and counsel
Hi. You don't know me, but I've run across your work a couple times and I was so impressed I gave you an award each time. So I consider you fairminded and savvy. I'd like to ask for your counsel, if I may. It's not in your job description I guess, so no problem if you can't do this. I don't have (or want) any WikiFriends, but I sure could use some advice and maybe a neutral look at my situation.

The deal is, I'm in a situation with another user which I'm not willing to let drop, for what I consider to be good reason (he would be glad to let it drop). He's refused mediation, so I'm unsure of my next step, although I have some ideas.

Well, you know what couples counsellors say -- "If he won't come in, at least come in yourself". You can't mediate this if the other party won't, but maybe you could review the situation and help me figure out what's going on, if I'm being unreasonable, and what my next steps might be.

Again, this is a random request that's out of your pay grade, so only if you want to. Herostratus (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Herostratus: It's great to hear from you; I have not crossed paths with you for some time. Indeed, I have not forgotten your kind words. I'm always willing to help users out in giving an outside opinion and I'd be happy to help you with your situation. Rather than discuss this on talk pages to begin with, I'd recommend that we take it to e-mail or IRC so as not to "set the cat amongst the pigeons" whilst we discuss the four key elements - the What, Space, Time and Outcome. These are 1) what the issue is between the two of you; 2) the space and time of the issue as I term it (the articles and talk pages which are the dispute interaction space, and the chronology of events which is the timeline); and 3) what you'd like as a desired outcome, the ideal scene once the dispute is over. Feel free to e-mail me with a summary of these, preferably with links -- but don't worry about diffs, since pages of diffs are often more of an encumbrance than a help -- and we can go from there. Alternatively, if you use IRC and you have some free time, please let me know when we could make an appointment for an IRC discussion on the subject; I regret I do not know your timezone, but mine is GMT/GMT+1 (United Kingdom). With my best regards, --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo mediation
Thanks for taking up this case. I see that you are able to read Italian and German, which is very useful. I hope we will find a way to conclude the dispute in a satisfactory way. Kind regards. - DonCalo (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)