User talk:Wikizach/Archive 5

Re: LostCasts AfD
Omitting all of the single purpose accounts, the vote on the AfD was 13-6 in favor of deletion. That's roughly 68% for deletion. Granted, AfD results are not based on the numbers alone, but in my opinion those voting for deletion made a much better argument, citing Wikipedia policy, whereas those who voted to keep didn't make a very strong case for notability. Could you please explain further (preferably on the AfD page) why you think there is no consensus? Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out in the discussion, the person who called into the show (he called in, didn't appear as a guest), Jorge Garcia, has also called into other Lost podcasts, such as Jay and Jack, and that podcast doesn't have a surge of fans littering Wikipedia. If that is your reason for notability then I would like you to reconsider.  The main Lost article already has a section on fandom, which a sentence or two about Jorge's interaction with the fans would be appropriate.  However, having an entire article based around that one fact is unnecessary.  I would also like for you to read through the article the fans of the podcast have created.  One section reads: Lostcasts is one of the successful podcasts in the world of fan podcasting and is a good example of podcasting development and progress and how it has affected the fan community worldwide. Lostcasts constantly adjusts their show format based on listener feedback, creating an interactive community not only locally but worldwide.  It also proves the impact of how a TV series can have on society and the internet community.  Those few sentences violate about a half dozen Wikipedia policies.  You really think this kind of material is appropriate? Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why did you close this discussion? First of all, you are not an administrator, and the outcome is not obvious, so you shouldn't have closed it at all, but I might have been willing to forgoe that had the close been at all in keeping with the way AFD works; the arguments for deletion were far stronger than the arguments for keeping, which were almost universally supplied by visitors from the website of the subject of the article. As such, I have reclosed the discussion and deleted the article. Please do not do something like this again.--SB | T 03:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #4
The September issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Referring FLG to Arbcom
That is fine with me, the FLG dispute is a large one with a long, complex history. Thanks for your help, let me know if you need anything. --Fire Star 火星 01:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have notified everyone on the list I'd provided to the Mediation Cabal's request page, and two others, with the following message:


 * "Informal mediator Wiki  e Zach|  talk  is preparing to move the Falun Gong mediation case to the Arbcom. I have been asked to alert concerned (to the best of my knowledge) editors about this matter. Thank you."


 * That covers most of the people who have been involved in the last few months or so. Cheers. --Fire Star 火星 23:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So you think that there's no point trying mediation? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions
Is it okay to message you? Any suggestions about my behavior to help along the Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America I am starting to get really annoyed at a particular user, which is not helpful for consensus building. You are probably tired of this mediation already. Any suggestions how I can change my behavior? You can email if you want, unless that is bad when you are a mediator. Or respond here or on my talk page. Thanks for your work thus far. I am starting to really get tired of this argument--maybe I will take a vacation from the page for a few days, and unwatch it. Travb (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I will do everthing that you ask--sorry to email you (did I? I don't recall actually ever e-mailing you, if I did I apologize). I will close the straw poll on Friday as per your request.  I announced closing the straw poll on the wikipage.  I am going to take it easy from this page, unless dragged back in before Friday. (Strike the last comment--I get so frustrated by people not doing what I suggested, I will not ignore what you asked me to do too--if I ignore you I am no better than those "cats" who never listen and are so hard to herd)


 * Thank your for your comments and hard work, you have taught me alot about how to be a better diplomat. Travb (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought I would let you know, I got into a heated debate, and the page went to Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents for the third time today, it was rejected by two admins. Travb (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What is Consensus?

 * What is a clear consensus for delete or keep? For example: Is 7-2 "keep"? Or no consensus?

I would suggest someone else decide these tough decisions. Because this will lessen the chances of others debating the resulting tally. In addition, a neutral third party would add legitamacy to the resulting tally.

Do you want me to ask someone else to tally the controversial sections?

IMHO, I think it would be better if you asked someone, (or asked me to ask a particual person) because others may debate my choice to tally the controversial sections.

Thanks for all of your hard work. Travb (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Closed and tallied
The strawpoll has now been closed and tallied, as you asked me to do. I am awaiting your recommendation for who you want to decide the results of the controversial sections in the poll.Travb (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Travb
RE: User_talk:Travb

If you want something done, do it yourself...that should be a wikipedia policy page. I was hoping you would tally the totals yourself, but I wasn't sure if this would cause your neutral status to be attacked, and jeprodize your neutrality. I am glad you are brave enough to make tough decisions, which everyone will not necessarily be happy with. Happy editing, and thanks again for your intellegent hard work. Travb (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 5th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested renaming of an article you are moderating
Just wanted to make sure that you were aware that there seems to be a rough consensus forming for a rather radical renaming of Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America to something along the lines of Covert actions by the United States. The exact name has not been agreed on, but everyone seems to be comfortable with the idea that it covers the referenced material currently within the article and provides a clear groundwork to build upon. LinaMishima 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I see two support and three oppose renaming. If there is a consensus at all yet, it seems to oppose renaming. Tom Harrison Talk 21:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not refering to the requested move, Tom. I'd like your opinion on the alternative that I put forth, you can find the link below. It's a non-vague name that's easily defined and supported by facts, so hopefully you'll approve. LinaMishima 21:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry about that, good idea. I normally have terrible trouble with making this work, but Effects_of_name_change_to_.22political_violence.22_-_and_an_alternative_suggestion should be where you can find it. Ok, so it's not much of a consensus to be honest, but Travb and zerofaults, normally on different sides of this debate, have actually came out supportive of the idea, and no objections have been raised (stone in the sky was commenting on the original rename idea). I was waiting for a third opinion or a definate response from zerofaults to travb's preference and slight adjustment before then putting forth a full proposed move. In the thread I've linked to there, you can also see the reasoning that went into the suggestion, that it's a name based entirely upon what the contents are trying to document. Roundabout, yes, but it seems to be working LinaMishima 21:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikizach can you change the article name to United States international covert operations, ASAP? It has wide support, including myself and Zer0faults, Tbeatty and LinaMishima. I was waiting for Stone's okay, but after 5 days, he seems MIA. If there is a huge uproar about the name change (which I doubt highly) we can always change it back. Travb (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Travb, as much as we would like there to be a consensus for a move to United States international covert operations, there is currently not one. Instead we have myself, you and Zer0 wanting the move, and an equal number of others who believe that state terrorism by the US deserves to be documented, but do not wish to properly follow WP:NOR. I suggest instead that the suggested alternative name be created on it's own seperately (more on the appropriate user's talk page). LinaMishima 16:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 11th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Tally results
IMHO the time for the name change is ripe (see above), and the cats may become fickle and change their mind, as cats do.

But on a less important and less pressing note you mentioned on my talk page:


 * == Tally ==


 * Actually I found that Wikipedia policy shows very clearly what consensus is, and I belive I will review the totals. Wiki  e Zach|  talk  14:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

When you get an opportunity and time to decide what the tally is, that would be wonderful. I will be interested in your results, as everyone else will be. I have no idea how to decide some of these close cases, since I have never been involved in a strawpoll, so it will be very educational to watch you do it. Thanks again for your hard work. Thanks to you, it seems like we are making strong, viable progress on the page. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * hi, i didn't actually request the mediation to be closed, you are the only thing saving us from total anarchy, but whatever :) I was looking for a tally on the strawpoll...which you have gracious provided, I see, thanks. Travb (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 18th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a thankless job
Hi Wikizach. I guess this is were we say goodbye and goodluck. I appreciate your mediation work on Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America‎

I was hoping more would have been resolved, but I am really impressed how far we have come. for this I have to say thank you for your hard work.

Thanks again. Travb (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 25th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #5
The October issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 12:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please look over the new edit war
Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America Unsuprisingly, this user refuses to abide by the straw poll results. Travb (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 15:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You have mail
You have a reply waiting for you at Esperanza/Admin coaching  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   18:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #6
The November issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Motion to repeal Esperanza charter
What was the rationale for your post moving to repeal the Esperanza charter? There is a need for clarification on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza. --Richard 22:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 13th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 23:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Making red things blue
Kim Bruning 03:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's linked from the Esperanza talk page. What more do you want, mermaids? :-) See the talk page for comments. Apparently your proposal is a copy of the old charter. I don't really like the old charter much either then, . Hmph. Well, there you go. See the talk page. Kim Bruning 03:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But other than that, great that you've made a start! :-) Kim Bruning 03:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 20th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikizach
Why does the above page appear at RfA but redirect to your userpage? If you are not ready to commence the RfA process then you can remove the link and tie the above page off until such as time as you would like to start. You will probably have to explain why you were absent for May-July and October, as a third of a year away from editing when you account was only started on December 26th is a lot of time to miss out on editing. Also, 1000+ edits is a little low for a new admin; editors seem to require 2-3000 edits across the main spaces of Wikipedia these days. Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Chris Rowe is a Senator in the Royal Senate of The Republic of Weurding. He has recently sponsored bills to impeach Second President "Stephen the Insane" yet all attempts were thwarted by both the Senate and some monkey named "Juan". His latest action is to try to fly, as he thinks he is "Rib-man".

His "opponents" include:


 * Mr. Santi Pardons Criminals (The Third President who pardons criminals)
 * Stephen the Insane (The Second President who has broken the law)
 * Super Noriko (Rowe's cousin, in the Senate, who votes against everything)

Category:Fictional senators

Rite and Reason
Chris Rowe, is described in the book Rite and Reason to explain how a change of though of a single senator in a small parliamentary body can effect an entire nation.

Government Scenario
The Republic of Weurding is a Parliamentary system with (what the book calls) a "layered executive". The First President is the leader of the country, like a Prime Minister. He/she can veto laws. The Second President is a person who serves in the Senate, who, is in charge of the Rules Committee. The Committee determines what bills can proceed to the floor. The Third President, is a person who serves as a speaker to speak against bills the President dislikes (the First's spokesperson in the Senate) who also has the ability to pardon convicted felons. All seats are elected by parliament (by the people), except the First president, who is picked out of the people.