User talk:Wisden17/Archive 4

Re: FPC
It tends to last for a while, usually. Cyberjunkie is usually the one to do the promotions; you might want to ask him for a more concrete timetable. Kirill Lokshin 01:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Featured Portal Candidates
Usually, they are left open for around 2-3 weeks (though closer to 3 than 2). I expect to close the remaining candidates over the coming week.--cj | talk 12:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

bending the rules
Well, it was a duplicate, really, so I just deleted it out of process. It can be found at ==COMPO bags==, which I just prodded, albeit it appears to have been de-prodded by the creator. And yes, a version about decomposable plastics would be preferable rather than an article focused on a specific product like "compobags". So if you're up to the task... :) - O bli (Talk) ? 13:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Andorra the band
You've linked your Afd nom to a closed debate. The page has been deleted at least twice, from memory. Consider replacing tag with ? --Dweller 13:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA


Hello Wisden17, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 17:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oink! Sorry bout that, just did copy and paste from andy's page (cos I had written something that I didn't really think made sense, then decided to start all over again), and forgot to use subst:pagename. All sorted now. Hopefully. Sam Vimes 17:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a teensy little thing
Hi,

At Mr. Blue, I noticed you used a G4 tag on something when it had only been speedy deleted previously. It is possible a confused person might actually have changed the CSDs, but -- in spirit anyway -- G4 is only supposed to apply to stuff that has been deleted through AfD or Prod (having been judged by the community in an open forum for five days.) If someone reposts something that has only been speedied before, just tag it with the proper speedy reason again.

I'm only being this picky because I expect you'll be an admin pretty soon. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 17:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Mediation
Wisden17, may you kindly request Andries to make a decision regarding accepting you as a meditator or not? Andries has been very busy on Wikipedia (look at his contribs) and I would like to know his decision. Andries did the same thing with the former mediator (BostonMA) in which he postponed or refused answering the mediator's questions. Thank you. SSS108 talk-email 18:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Untrue, I admit that I was not fast at responding, but I did answer the mediators's questions. Andries 22:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unlike SSS108 I have never been a single purpose editor and I refuse to become one. Andries 22:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Andries, we are still waiting for your answer. Either you are accepting the mediator or not. It is not a difficult decision. Yes or no? And my only purpose on wikipedia is to balance out the Sathya Sai Baba article that you dominated for years. The only reason you edit other articles is so that you won't be called a "single purpose" editor. It is clear to many editors that you are using wikipedia as a therapy forum and to push your Anti-Guru/Cult POV. Putting this aside, what is your answer to mediation? Why are you refusing to give an answer? We would all like to know. SSS108 talk-email 00:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wisden17, I will only accept mediation if Andries agrees that he will respond in a timely manner to ALL mediation questions (whether he thinks they are "urgent" or not). If you can suggest a time-table in which replies must be made, and with which Andries agrees, then I will proceed with mediation. I will not be waiting many days for Andries to respond (as he did with the previous mediator). I also fail to see why Andries refused to publicly accept you as a mediator, yet instead emailed you privately his acceptance. I think it is important that it be clearly stated, on the record (in Andries own words), by what terms and in what fashion he accepted you, especially considering his prior public statements in which he said he had not yet accepted you. After a time-table is agreed upon, which is reasonable, I will proceed with mediation. Thank you. SSS108 talk-email 21:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I fully stand by my decision in the previous mediation about not giving priority to (often difficult) questions by the mediator about the reputability of sources that were not used in the article and that would not be used in the article. Questions about sources that were and would not be used in the article cannot reasonably considered be urgent. Andries 21:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you were not the mediator. Therefore, you cannot be determining what questions are "not urgent" and which ones are. BostonMA asked you questions to determine your idea of NPOV and he had every right to ask you the questions he did. If you do not want to answer ALL the questions posed by the mediator in a timely fashion (3 days), then I think it is best we take this to arbitration. I will not waste my time again, as I did under BostonMA, in which you stonewalled, circumvented and postponed mediation because of your own personal whims and fancies. Either you agree or not. SSS108 talk-email 00:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A max. of seven days for answering questions is acceptable for me. A max. of three days is too little. Andries 07:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that answering four questions in one month is a ridiculous time-table, too time consuming, does not work (as proved in former mediation) and I will not agree to that time-table. I think it is entirely fair to answer two questions per week (every 3 days). You made no less than 76 edits from the 16th to the 20th (from the time mediation was accepted to the time you alleged you were on a wikibreak), which is a daily average of 13 posts. I do not think my proposed time-table is unreasonable. So, Andries, one last time: Do you agree to a time-table of 3 days or not? If your answer is "no", then Wisden17 can close the case and I will file a request with the Arbitration Committee. SSS108 talk-email 12:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I want to have the freedom to take one week to answer difficult questions.  Of course, I will answer easy questions faster. May be Wisden17 will not ask any difficult questions. If my answer is unacceptable to you then yes, I think, that the mediation can probably not start. To show my good will regarding mediation I came back earlier from my wikibreak, though I only had and have very limited time and energy. Andries 05:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wisden17: An Assessment Please
Wisden17, I would kindly ask that you assess this situation and give your opinion. Do you feel that this issue is worth your time based on what you have seen thus far? Is it common for a mediation party to question and not accept the mediator for 6 days after the mediation request is accepted (all the while making numerous edits on Wikipedia)?

In my opinion, Andries, is using the facade of "difficult questions" as an excuse and a loophole in mediation. Andries contended that the reason he did not answer the mediation questions (under BostonMA) in a timely manner was because they were "not urgent" or irrelevant.

Andries refused to accept you as the mediator. To this day, Andries still has not given a reason why he refused to accept you as the mediator. When I queried Andries for a response, he refused to answer. My question was not a "difficult question", yet Andries did not answer it. After 6 days of silence (during which time Andries was making numerous edits on Wikipedia) and just after you closed the case (because of Andries refusal to give an answer), he privately emailed you and said he would accept mediation. I must confess that I am very troubled that Andries contacted you privately to accept mediation, instead of answering my question publicly. It leaves me to wonder what he might have said that he is not willing to say publicly even though he agreed to mediate our dispute using the Wikipedia forum. Even more disturbing is how Andries ignored your request to inform him if he was going on a Wikibreak. Once again, Andries refused to answer your request for 5 days, thereafter claiming (out of the blue) that he was on Wikibreak. Andries retracted his Wikibreak comment the very next day. This was, for all practical purposes, a delaying tactic.

If Andries thinks his behavior exemplifies one acting in "good faith", then I'm afraid he will continue acting the same way he has over the past week. Since we cannot agree on a time-table, and based on Andies behavior, am I justified in suggesting that we proceed to Arbitration? Your opinions are kindly requested. Sincerely, SSS108 talk-email 21:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your assesment is full of untruths and glaring misrepresentations, just as your website. First of all I did not refuse Wisden as a mediator. I only needed some more time to make a decision whether I would accept him. The reason why I did not Wisden readily accept as a mediator is because I wanted to check whether he was experienced enough, exactly in the same way as in the previous mediation. The second untruth is that I did not inform Wisden of my Wikibreak. Please check this talk page. I planned a wikibreak until Saturday for private reason, but broke it earlier because of your and Wisden's complaints. The Wikibreak of one day cannot seriously considered a delaying tactic. Andries 06:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you had every opportunity to say exactly what you just said for 6 days and you chose to say absolutley nothing despite repeated requests for you to explain why you were not accepting Wisden17 as the mediator. Wisden17's initial post to both of us specifically stated that if either of us were going on Wikibreak to inform him. You said nothing. Once again, you stayed silent for 5 days before you claimed you were on Wikibreak. And your Wikibreak comment never mentioned anything about you being on Wikibreak for one day. Who takes a Wikibreak but is still active on Wikipedia, making edits? That is exactly what you claimed. Your comments don't mesh. I consider this disussion ended. SSS108 talk-email 14:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wisden17, I have decided to file a request with the Arbitration Committee. Thank you warmly for your willingness to mediate this issue. I will be filing a request in the coming days. Since I have never filed a request before, may you kindly instruct me in the correct procedure in filing a request? Sincerely, SSS108 talk-email 15:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I find the Arb template I am supposed to use. SSS108 talk-email 19:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL
Hi,

The honest answer is that I haven't read the latest revisions and just got it wrong. :) In my defense, PROD is one of those policies that makes me feel like an old-timer, and I have a tendency to think that there's nothing firm about its details.  That said, PRODs are routinely overturned immediately if brought to DRV, so I guess I should be used to its relative impermanence! :)  The good thing about this exchange is that now we both have reason to refresh on policy-reading, which is always good for one's wiki-health. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

delete tags
thanks for your notes. I'll try and use the right tag.

asnatu 19:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

When trying to write the Wikipedia syntax so that someone can see the bare syntax, please surround the syntax with &lt;nowiki&gt; and &lt;/nowiki&gt;, to prevent the Wikimedia software from translating it to HTML. For example, write &lt;nowiki&gt; &lt;/nowiki&gt; instead of  when you want to expose the  tag instead of listing the page for speedy deletion as a non-notable biography. I had to fix your comment on Asnatu wiki's talk page on how to list pages for speedy deletion. Jesse Viviano 19:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you called me an amin on Asnatu wiki's talk page. However, I am not one. I do often lurk around CAT:CSD, looking at articles soon to be speedily deleted because they are sometimes good for laughs. I also fix faulty speedy deletion tags as well and will occasionally mark a page for speedy deletion myself when I spot a candidate. I even copied one of the candidates, Richardland Middle School, to WP:BJAODN because it was really good for laughs. Its final resting place is here. I just felt that I needed to save a page that definitely should not be speedily deleted when trolling for jokes. Jesse Viviano 04:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

speedy deletion tags
Hi,

Your comment almost cost me my user page.... You forgot to surround deletion tags in your comment with &lt;nowiki&gt; tags and my user talk page ended up in CAT:CSD

Luckily, an admin bothered to look up my page and decided to not delete it plus fixed the tags as they should have been.

FYI.

asnatu 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

On wikibreak
I am on a wikibreak, but still have enough time do do some low intensity work on the mediation of Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 22:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Golden Dawn Mediation
I've just made more suggestions to the mediation file but 999 has edited them already. Every effort I make on the mediation file gets edited by 999. He provided commentary and I had to reply, he has now struck lines through my suggestions. Frater FiatLux 22:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert the file as you said to contact you when 999 made editing on the mediation.

The lines should be put through all of the extra comments by both myself and 999, or the line should be removed from my suggestions.

Please also see my talk page where today 999 has personally attacked me and Cowman had to remove the comments and warn 999 on his user talk page.

Frater FiatLux 22:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC) P.S.

Here's the version that I put up there:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:
Incessant discussion, in which neither parties can achieve a coherent consensus. There have been repeated attempts at discussions on the disputation with relevant parties, but thus far, is without success or agreement. Editing and Revert warring mainly taking precedence over discussion.

I have tried on many occasions to contact administrators and left messages on the administration board and asked for the articles to be locked down so that edit/revert wars could cease and proper discussion and proposals could begin.

Comment: That is a false cliam by user 999, a reply was made directly to that compromise on the 17 June at 21:15.Frater FiatLux 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * First steps
 * Consensus was attempted under headings "Survey" and "Consensus" of this talk page: Talk:Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn. Zos 15:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus was attempted here: Talk:The_Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn%2C_Inc., beginning under the header called "Discussion of addition of inappropriate material + survey". Zos 15:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A direct and specific offer of compromise was posted on User_talk:Frater FiatLux under the heading Compromise. There was no reply whatsoever to any of the specific elements brought up in that proposal. -999 (Talk) 15:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Second steps
 * An RfC was attempted at Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy by user 999, although unsigned (proof he did it: here and here), in which Baba Louis entered the picture (here). Zos 16:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment:Baba Louisfirst entered the dispute by adding to the revert warring first, and then only after this was mentioned by myself and User: Zanoni666, did Baba Louis start to make discussion as then he had to. The mediator should note Baba Louis first made reverts to the HOGD, Inc., article first.  The evidence that he did not enter in to discussion first and only added to the revert waring is in the History for the HOGD, Inc. article.


 * If a user joins a dispute on an RfC they should discuss first and not just simply add to the editing warring which is what baba louis did. Baba Louis also made this comment to my talk page after he was recruited by user 999. " Please do not attempt to communicate with other users on my talk page. That is what their talk page is for. I was going to decline User:999's request, but you've just annoyed me sufficiently that I am going to accept. ---Baba Louis"

Frater FiatLux 20:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Issues to be mediated
Note to parties: Per the instructions, issues should be listed as bullet statements of actual issues to be mediated. Commentary on the nature of the conflict should be reserved for after the request has been accepted. Please provide the issues to be mediated in the form required. Essjay ( Talk  • Connect  ) 05:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Determine whether999 is a sockpuppet of JMAX555
 * Determine whether999 is a sockpuppet ofSynergeticMaggot

Frater FiatLux 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Determine whether Zanoni666 is a sockpuppet of Kephera975. -999 (Talk) 15:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Determine whether Zanoni666 is a sockpuppet of Frater FiatLux - JMax555 06:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment:The claim by JMAX555 has already been proven completely false at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Frater_FiatLux Frater FiatLux 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Determine whether it is appropriate to include Opuaut in this mediation. This user is new as of June 10, does not have an established history as a Wikipedia editor, and has made a total of 10 edits, 2 being to his/her user page, 4 being to talk pages, and 4 being reverts to material written by one of the other parties to this mediation. Opuaut has not added any original content to any of the articles. -999 (Talk) 22:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Frater FiatLux 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Opuaut has only just joined Wikipedia and is making things even, because of user 999's active recruitment to edit and revert articles. User Opuaut is merely balancing things out and hasn't had long enough here to make any significant contributions.  An equal number on all sides I feel is paramount for true consensus to be made.

Frater FiatLux 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Determine whether user 999 is playing dirty, unprincipled games to block users, with such comment and taunts to my talk page as: "That's four reverts on the mediation page. See you in a week. -999" (Talk) 16:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC).


 * Confirm the decision to restrict Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn to the historical Golden Dawn, excluding reference to the modern Orders beyond a link to each Order's article. -999 (Talk) 14:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Determine weather all modern history should be completely deleted in the main article.Frater FiatLux 22:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Determine weather the contemporary order articles should all be deleted as it was a bad idea to start with and unsupported in the last dispute. It was bound to degenerate into edit warring.Frater FiatLux 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Confirm the decision to avoid edit warring by listing all links to the modern Order articles, both internal and external, in alphabetical order. -999 (Talk) 14:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Determine what orders should actually be in the links section to orders. An order like "The August order of the Mystic Rose" a traditional GD order is not included, yet orders such as the "Sodalitas Rosae Crucis et Solis Alati", are included. The S.R.C. et S.A., would be better suited under Martinism and not traditional GD, and certainly doesn't conform to GD teachings as does the A.O.M.R. and are included in the links section.Frater FiatLux 22:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Determine whether raw court documents such as affidavits and contracts are acceptable as sources under WP:V. If they are hosted on a particular Order's website, should their use be restricted to the article on that Order, or are they completely unacceptable as sources? -999 (Talk) 15:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Frater FiatLux 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Should affidavits and original documents downloaded from the courts web-site, through the pacer and signed by the hand of the heads of certain orders, be used as an accurate verifiable source?


 * Determine whether the self-published autobiographical websites of the various Orders can be used in any article or whether their use is restricted to that Order's article per WP:V. -999 (Talk) 15:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Determine the appropriateness of uncited judgmental material (such as calling people "Satanists") added to various Order articles by Zanoni666: EOGD, OSOGD, OSM, SRC&SA. -999 (Talk) 15:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Determine whether it would simply be the better option to remove all of the contemporary orders pages and replace them only with links to the orders in the main GD article. Parties have not so far agreed on any of the content in those contemporary order pages and two are fully locked because of this disagreement.Frater FiatLux 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Determine whether or not to move all except one paragraph about the Cipher Manuscripts to the article of that title. -999 (Talk) 15:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Determine if two of the sources being offered, one being the paper by Bruce Wilson and the other the book Sword of Wisdom by Ithell Colquhoun, which make exceptional claims (as per WP:RS) that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community, are appropriate to be used in any of the articles. And if they are used, should they be footnoted to that effect. - JMax555 06:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Determine whether to delete all modern history surrounding the Cipher Manuscripts.Frater FiatLux 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Determine whether the Cipher manuscript should have its own page or should it all be included as one whole in the main GD article.Frater FiatLux 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Frater FiatLux 22:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Meditation
Ok, sure. -999 (Talk) 22:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My Mediation Committee Nom
Hi Wisden17. I just wanted to let you know that I have withdrawn my nomination from the Mediation Committee. This was not because what you said upset me or anything like that, I valued your comments greatly, but I didn't realise that the place was as concerned with project space, etc, as it was. I've joined the Mediation Cabal, as it is far less official there, and I feel that myself and what I want to achieve and get out of this project will be more suited there. Once again, thank you very much for your comments, and thank you for taking the time to even consider me for the Mediation Committee. Yours, Th e Halo (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Depending on how I find Med Cab, I might just do that. However, I might like Med Cab so much I never leave ;) Once again, thanks for your kind words, and if you ever need anything, please don't hesitate to talk to me. Th e Halo (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply-Vote
I have more edits now, and I work best by learning on the job. Geo. 02:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User: Wanderim
I see that you have deleted a vanity bio page created by this user, and reverted some vanity edits he made as well. I wanted to let you know that he has recreated said vanity article, and I speedied it as a repost. ---Charles 05:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I got your message, and keeping an eye on this guy sounds like a good idea. He does not seem maliciously intended, just slightly deluded. ---Charles 15:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Grim Records
Hi there. Just wanted to bring a quick point about your nomination of Grim Records to your attention. For the future, please note that the guideline WP:CORP cannot be used to qualify something for speedy deletion. Only having "no assertion of notability" (emphasis mine) per criterion for speedy deletion A rticle 7 can qualify an article for a speedy. Thanks. -- SCZenz 07:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You can AfD anything you like, of course, and you may well be right to do so. I just like to remind people that it's not non-notability, or fialing to meet WP:BIO/WP:CORP/WP:WEB that makes things eligible for speedy deletion&mdash;it's only if there's no assertion of notability.  It might even have been a viable speedy (I didn't look too closely), it's just that the reason you gave for the original speedy wasn't applicable.  No big deal; this is just one of my personal campaigns for improving the wiki at the moment. -- SCZenz 11:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RFCU Clerk
Go ahead and add your name to the list on WP:RFCU/Clerks. There is some basic info on the /Guide page and also read the discussion archives and current discussion on the clerks noticeboard and talk pages. After that if you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them. Thatcher131 16:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA
 Computerjoe would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Computerjoe to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. Coolidge. Computerjoe 's talk 20:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No prob, I saw it doing CSD patrol :) It does appear to be a fork, and is only used in one place so far, so a TFD may be in order. —  xaosflux  Talk  00:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The Hunger Project RfAr

 * Obviously, I would prefer to proceed with a content-based discussion of the material in question on The Hunger Project page, through the already established Mediation Process. I have attempted to cite referenced sources in blockquote format for material contributed to above mentioned articles, in order to present referenced information as opposed to a particular POV.  As to marking certain edits as minor, I apologize if this was misconstrued, I am a relatively new user to Wikipedia and did think at the time that these edits were minor in nature, but I will cease this activity.  I had indeed reverted the edits made after Danny had changed the page and deleted many of my blockquoted cited references, as a show of good faith that I wish to engage in and proceed with the Mediation Process, as I would imagine so do the other users who accepted the Mediation Process on the article The Hunger Project.  If certain users had had a problem with any of my activities on Wikipedia, as opposed to a conversation about content on a particular article, I would have preferred to engage said users directly about my alleged actions, before an arbitration.  As of yet, Jcoonrod and I had had a relatively civil discussion on the discussion boards, with no warning of a need for arbitration.  Again, I apologize if I have previously acted inappropriately (separate from the pending Mediation Process content based debate), but I am relatively new to Wikipedia and had not been informed of any inappropriate behavior separate from the issue of the content of the article.Smeelgova 03:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Basically, I am relatively new and unfamiliar with the various procedures utilized by Wikipedia. I wish to be truthful and straightforward and admit that my edits most likely contain POV as do those of most editors, as it is difficult to screen out POV from one's edits.  I would also like to state that as such, it seems likely thatJcoonrod's edits also contain POV, as this is virtually inevitable.  I believe we have both been trying to push our own POV on the article.  As to the content, I have tried to cite sources in blockquote format.  As to my actions, I truly will have to plead ignorance, if a supposed pattern is found to my edits, I can not deny this and only state that similar patterns probably exist for Jcoonrod's edits as well as for most of the other editors to the article historically.  This can be seen by a simple perusal of edits and discussions between other users and Jcoonrod prior to my initial edit to the article.  I will proceed with arbitration, but would much rather focus our debate on the content and citability of sources, rather than shift the entire focus to a personal debate on actions by a single individual.  Please let me know what other actions would be appropriate by me in your view at this point, and thank you for your time.Smeelgova 03:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei Mediation
Hi, I'm one of the parties in the Opus Dei Mediation. I saw a little while ago on the mediation page that you were going to take the case, but I haven't heard anything about it since. Do we need to do anything? Or is it just a time thing? :). Look forward to working with you.  --Alecmconroy 21:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your user page
It's lovely! Nice work.

Can I nick it? --Dweller 21:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

copy-editing
Hi Wisden: Thanks for asking; I'm not free to do big jobs until after 3 July, because of a work deadline. I'll have a look then, if that fits your timeframe. Tony 06:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thanks so much for the support on my recent RfA, which I'm quite happy to announce has passed with a consensus of 67 supporting, 0 opposed and 0 neutral. I'm glad I met your criteria, and I'll be working hard to justify the vote of confidence you've placed in me. Let me know at my talk page if I can help you with any admin-related tasks, or if you just have any comments on how I'm doing as an admin. Thanks! TheProject 22:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei mediation
Thanks for taking mediation, Wisden 17!! Been on Wikibreak, sorry! Yup, July 7 would be ok. See you! Ndss 10:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Anytime after June 7 is fine with me. If you'd prefer it after the World Cup, that'll be ok as well! :) 01:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC) (comment by Thomas S. Major).

Wisden, yay! excited to finally start mediation-- it's been about six weeks since we first requested it. :).  I notice that Pvazz seems to have been on Wikibreak for the last month-- he was active in the debate when we first filed, but I haven't seen hide nor hair of him lately.  I'm comfortable going ahead without him-- I think he and I were in agreement in about the direction the article should take.  --Alecmconroy 10:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that opus dei mediation is about to begin and I have a question before it does I’m new to wikipedia and not sure how mediation works I thought that I would be able to watch the mediation unfold and comment on it without actually joining it (my view are largely the same as Alecmconroy) is the correct or is mediation a private thing between the mediator and thoughs in mediation?.Ansolin 14:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wisden-- hope you had a great wikibreak. Thanks again for helping out. So, how do we start this party started? --Alecmconroy 14:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei
The last thing I have on Requests for mediation/Opus Dei is you volunteering to take it on; could you update me on the status of it, I'm trying to clean out the open tasks list. Essjay ( Talk  • Connect  ) 06:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Luther Wamble
The article on Luther Wamble is not means of posting information about myself; I am not Luther Wamble. Such an article meets the standards because he has been featured on the albums: "Okie Dokie Stomp", "Timeless", "Real Life (Live)", all by Clarence "Gatemouth" Brown. Also "BLues Road Trip", and "Blues Train", both compilation albums. He has been featured on the radio, although uncredited, and has been interviewed and featured on local news.

In regard to the "portal" I created, the name of the journal is "portal: Libraries and the Academy," hence I created it with that name.--Plovis 18:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

AMA Roll Call
There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign next to your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / poll ) 18:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me. PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)