User talk:Unomi/Archive/2010May

An Invitation
I would like to invite you to join a centralized discussion at WP:IPCOLL to contribute any thoughts you might have regarding Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues harlan (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chiropractic controversy and criticism
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chiropractic controversy and criticism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Chiropractic controversy and criticism (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for MEDCAB Mediation
The request for mediation concerning Israel and the apartheid analogy, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). If you have any questions, please contact me.

Ronk01 (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been editing under various IP's for about five years, so I feel myself to be more than qualified to mediate this dispute. Ronk01 (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that you have managed to contact a swath of people regarding you accepting the case, and failing to link to the actual case seems an early indicator of your lack of care in your interactions. That you suggest a title for the article yourself, prior to hearing the thoughts of those involved, or even looking through recent talkpages of the article strengthens this impression. Please self revert and let someone else handle this. Unomi (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the lack of links was a technical error (the [ and ] keys are rather stiff on my keyboard) And my suggestion of a title was more to see just how "hot" the editors were, so that I could proceed accordingly. Luckily, they seem to be rather cooperative. Thank you. Ronk01 (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)