User talk:Xavexgoem/archive1

Civility
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Metros (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Will remove on the 9th, which happens to be my birthday. Xavexgoem 00:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy almost birthday!! (What prompted that warning? I can't have someone I've been mentoring going south on me :-)  I saw you warned the latest vandal on the Referendum page:  you can find the templates for warning vandals listed on my userpage, where you can just edit copy them. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I warned him, then he said very nasty things about me on my talk page, so I went to the admin IP deleter page with the edit summary "troll/vandal/weenie". So an admin gave me a warning! Yay! Xavexgoem (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, so two things. First, you shouldn't do that :-)  Second, the admin who warned you needs to be reminded of WP:BITE, because you may not have known you shouldn't do that.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why the guy who gave the warning gave the warning...so that the user could be aware of the issue of civility and how to deal with other users on Wikipedia. The warning I used is a very informative one and was not a final warning sort of warning.  It was an informational one.  Metros (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just checking, Metros; X is fairly new, has been a helpful and good faith editor, and I've been trying to mentor him along. I'd not like to lose the good ones :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

X, I've just reviewed your talk page history. Are you telling me that after this, *you* were given a warning? Or was it something else? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The warning was given for the edit summary I gave _after_ that incident. As Metos just said, it's not a big deal. I'm mostly wondering when I can delete that, which is unanswered. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm caught up now. Delete what, the warning?  It's best not to delete, in terms of good faith.  You're better off archiving all talk page entries.  Can you figure out how to set up talk page archives, or do you want help?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That'd be cool. Although I imagine that it'd be something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xavexgoem/archive, etc? Xavexgoem (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There's your first archive page: you can move text to it via edity copy-edit paste, and later learn how to prettify your talk page and where you want to put your archive. Some editors have pretty boxes; one of my favorites is at User talk:Bishonen; JRSP's page is an example of a simple archive. Find a talk page from another editor that you like, and copy their setup. Now be sure to read up on WP:AGF, WP:NPA and all that so my efforts won't be in vain :-)) Kindness is the *only* way to make Wiki not suck. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * /archive1
 * I'll archive on the 9th. I turn 20, so it seems right I get a fresh start ;) Xavexgoem (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Right to Resist
Thanks for your help. This Doc guy apparently really has something against me. He said about me, "looking long and hard at this user's contributions, I find it hard to assume other than a deliberate attempt to provoke drama. In a more rounded user's own space, I'd allow more latitude." It's scary to think I have an enemy. Anyway, he's trying to delete it again. Any more help would be appreciated. --MQDuck (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was deleted rather quickly. I'm sure he has his reasons, and that's fine. Personally, I find it a violation of WP:AGF for this to have happened as quickly as it did and without any input. Particularly, I find it deplorable that the provocations with these userboxes has come from admins and not editors. C'est la vie. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, you can change your vote; it's standard to use the strikethru tags (i.e. xxxx ) to make that explicit for the closing admin, like so -- Kendrick7talk 19:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would just ignore Oto if I were you. I don't think you're going to get through to him the point that his arguments have no place here. Hopefully if he doesn't get any response he'll get the picture.  Equazcion •✗/C • 17:07, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'm getting a little hot headed as it is. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Stagflation
Hi, I added a small example. Would be happy to have it refined or removed by you. Really happy to see how you are really increasing the quality of the page. My personal reasons for stagflation in the US are: ongoing sell of treasuries on the market by the Chinese, the trade deficit (consuming more than producing), increased shortage of imported commodities (e.g. Oil). Stagflation results because all of the tree can in fact not be controlled or regulated by the US (Sadly not even the trade deficit) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David stokar (talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Mucoid plaque
Thanks for the explanation. Heelop comes by every few months or so trying to promote this stuff. Since he "forgot" to notify those of us he named in the mediation request, I didn't know what was going on. Cheers - Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First medcab attempt fails miserably :p. Nevertheless, if Heelop could provide an edit for all to look at (without it being summarily deleted; i.e., not on the article page), I'd be happy to help in any case. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Creating Policy
Hi, thanks for your addressing of this issue. I wanted to ask your help on how we could establish policy with regards to POV pages of politicians and commentators. Would appreciate any help you can give. Thanks. Arnabdas (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I do agree about good faith and that is what I am assuming now. It looks like Blaxthos has deeply misunderstood my intent. I just wish he didnt engage in the formal warnings that he gave me and hope we can come to some consensus for this. Arnabdas (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEDCAB
Would you mind if I jumped into the discussion at: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-21 Gilad Shalit as a co-mediator? I don't want to step on any toes. I just signed on to another mediation with a co-mediator but found it appears that one of the parties may not be open to mediation. I've done some other WP:DR but nothing else on WP:MEDCAB and want to get my feet wet on a team if possible rather than trying to take something alone later.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all :) Getting my feet wet too. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not helping as much as I'd hoped. Mostly just watching as I don't want to muck things up now that you've got them moving.  You seem to be doing a lot of work.  Good job so far!--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sassanid Empire Template
Hi, in response to your question, no, I have not specifically notified the other user, but I did post the Request for Negotiation on the template's page, as the template is what is being edited. I am happy to take advice, however, as I am more of a content adder and less of a process person on Wikipedia. (Which often puts me at a huge disadvangate!) If you think a RfC is the way to go, then let's do it. However, how can we assure that the Iranian users that dominate this article and its associated template won't flood the RfC, doing the same thing there that they do in the article itself? Regards, Larry Dunn (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is always the danger in RfC (and AfD, et al) to get a kind of editor swamp that skews the opinion one way or another. Thinking back, I think a third opinion might be a better option instead of RfC... actually, I'm now tending to think that 3O is almost always preferable to RfC, since the latter has a tendency for me-too voting, misconstruing the RfC process (which isn't about voting anyway) and calling it consensus.
 * That said, I'd be cautious of accusing Iranians of dominating an article as a cabal (there is no cabal). In particular, the folks over at project Iran have a good deal of context under their belts, and with it a good deal of knowledge. After all, Iranians are going to be the major contributing editors to Iran related articles (and who better qualified, generally speaking), but that doesn't mean they're trying to dominate it. Despite your best intentions, (striked; I edited this post to carbon before posting it, so there are some artifacts - I don't think I meant anything bad by it :p) This is always something to keep in mind: we are editors, not nationalities, ethnicities, etc. The problem is not with Iranians pushing a POV, it is a problem of POV pushers best qualified to push an Iranian POV. This probably comes across as super patronizing, but it is always best to keep the person behind the keyboard out of it, and consider only what they type.
 * That said, and that said... If this remains an issue, inform CreazySuit of the mediation or a 3O/RfC (which is part of the process for both). If you go medcab, just drop him a note; if you go 3O, drop him a note and then make as concise an argument as you can. Keep a cool head throughout the process. The point is to have consensus; you may never agree on what goes, but to reconcile differences is key.
 * Xavexgoem (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks I don't think 3O will work as another editor joined him in reverting the edit to the description of the map. So I will post on Creasysuit's user page about the medcab.


 * On your discussion of the background of the editors, I do think it's important to keep the person behind the keyboard out of it -- until the person himself inserts it into the debate, which can be done by your actions as well as your words. These editors make nothing but edits to POV push in favor of Iranian subjects, and these are not edits to make things more accurate, but to make their preferred subjects look better.  We are supposed to assume good faith -- but not forever.Larry Dunn (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails live performances GAN
Thanks so much for taking the time to review NIN live performances. I've done my best to address most of your concerns, so let me know what you think. Also, since you've obviously read the article, and are probably more aware of the article's strengths and weaknesses than any other third party, do you think you could put in your 2 cents on a particular issue we're having with the article? The conversation can be found on the article's talk page (The section right above the one you made, titled "collapsible tables". There's a few issues that were brought up in that discussion, namely whether the tables should be collapsible, and whether the article should be split up or not.  I would really appreciate it if you chimed in on that.  But if you don't, thanks anyways for the review.  Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to gain your support. 19:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've taken care of all of your concerns for the article. Let me know if there is anything else I can do.  As for the debate about splitting the article up or rearranging it somehow, I think I'll leave it as is for now, and perhaps bring it to peer review of FAC and get some more opinions there.  Thanks again. Drewcifer (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the hold period for the article's review is up, no? Is there anything else that you think should be done to secure the articles nomination? Drewcifer (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Medcab 9/11 statement
I have no problem with it's removal. However I'm amazed that several editors got upset at being called "conservative". Calling use of the word "being abused and attacked" seems a little overboard. That was actually my second version and I chose it because it was only half the length of the first. The first version didn't use the word as I said "editors supporting the government version" instead. Is that phrase acceptable? Wayne (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In my mind, it's best in these disputes to keep editors out of it when dealing with content issues, and focus only on the issues at hand, mentioning editors only where necessary. Particularly in high-tension controversial articles, where feelings often get hurt and the politics and context of any editor is hard to decipher, it's always wise to never generalize or assume.
 * You always gotta put yourself in other people's shoes: do editors support the government version, or do they know the government version to be true? And the same for editors with a gut feeling about other versions. I also know that 9/11 controversy draws a large crowd, and "conservative" is easily interpreted as "right-wing", when you can have Marxists, anarchists, libertarians, etc, involved. That's despite what you may have meant with "conservative".
 * So I feel the solution is to move away from the editors and focus on the issues. It's just too easy to create what appears to be an ad hominem attack, or a judgment on their nature. And it's too easy to get those wrong. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you do not see my edit as too much "ad hominem". If you choose to delete it, please keep the part "we should first reach agreement..." etc. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. No trout or organic carrot (which is what my local wholefood store threatens to beat shoplifters with) will come to any harm over your head :) I fully understand and agree with the reasons for redrafting the statement. Other issues will not be solved overnight. It is better to deal with one thing at a time where possible. ireneshusband (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Medcab 9/11
A subject that continually comes up is lack of reliable sources for various conspiracy theories. We really need a question addressing this. For example, this paper was submitted for peer review but rejected not because it had faults but because (according to the rejection statement) it was outside the purview of peer reviewed physics and engineering publications. It was undeniable that it was within the purview so it's rejection has to be based on a reluctance to peer review anything supporting conspiracy theories. Wayne (talk) 09:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Removed question 7 from medcab
Fine with me! You're the boss... And I'm very curious what you'll do with it, but that can wait! &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * re Socking: I noticed the question mark. Yes, it is a good faith sock. What would happen when Vanja2 would edit under her account (with her typing), but when her and me would still work together discussing edits? It would still be my influence, unknown to wikipedians, but then no wikipedia guideline or custom would be violated. Is that what people would prefer? The best thing on wikipedia is WP:HONESTY, right? Can you please help me find a solution? RxS wants me to report it to ANI, I'm not sure how to proceed. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

''Strange question: Are there any diffs you can pull up of you or others being uncivil, and either wish to apologize for or want an apology from? This is where I've been heading... Xavexgoem (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already apoligized for some incivilty, and so have others. For me the past is past, and I no longer resent that. If others, in the present, are still feeling hurt by incivilty in the past, that is the present also, and I think it is a good idea of yours to address that. So I'm happy to talk about any diff, I like the idea, but I choose not to select any myself. By the way, I've lost the ANI/trolling by Ireneshusband section. Do you know where it is archived? It was there two weeks ago. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, this: version

Barnstar
Aw hell! You've created a rift between my conscience and my ego!

I'm keeping it. Not because I agree, but because it's my first barnstar :-p

Xavexgoem (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Rorschach Inkblots
''I think if it's the case that originals are being shown, it shouldn't be hard to reach consensus for some editor to take a piece of paper, blot some ink on it, fold it, then scan it. If that's not the case... I just don't think you can censor all symmetrical ink blots.''
 * I agree, it should not be hard to reach consensus for a non-original inkblot. I feel I have my shortcomings when communication this issue. In trying to be unbiased in presenting the case by avoiding a possible solution, I actually made it harder for myself. At first I thougth the solution came up when somebody pointed out the compromise on having drawings instead of photos in the list of sex positions. But in looking at the talk history I found it had been proposed before.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, apparently it is hard to reach that consensus because it has been tried more than once. And it is the case that the "original" is shown in the article right now. By the way, it's psychologists, not psychiatrists, who are showing them. And psychologists do, in fact, show the originals; it couldn't be done any other way. Ward3001 (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No apology needed. Common mistake. Ward3001 (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I had to take a break from this subject. I see very little progress and takes a lot of time. Anyway, I did want to ask something. There is no mediator assigned to this case. What should I do? Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-03-19_Rorschach_inkblot_test.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My experience with the mediation cabal was much better thanks to you. I'm still a bit frustrated, I understand PhilKnight answer, I guess I was a bit naive in thinking the Cabal had enough time to try to bring the parties to the table. Not in this case. Thanks for your time, I may come back asking for advice later, I hope you wouldn't mind.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

9/11 mediation
Hi Xavex, I need mediation on 9/11, but I do not know how to go about it. There is an ArbCom in progress, as you must know. My question whether 9/11 is part of the arbitration, despite the title of the request, has remained unanswered. I assume it is part of it. Would you be willing to share your thoughts on the matter with me? &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Urd (Oh My Goddess!)
I suggested the merge in the first place and participated in the discussions. There is current discussion at Talk:List of characters in Oh My Goddess!, and there are no sources cited in the 'article' under the redirect. See also; Talk:Oh My Goddess! and WP:ANI. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, saw the edit summary. Sorry for that. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem; and pleased to meet you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Aratta case
I would actually prefer to have the mediation done on the mediation case page, given that this involves a TON of well-known scholarly references for the Mahabharata and Ararat schools of thought (numbers 2 and 3 on my list). Many of these refs have already been brought up on the talkpage, and have already brushed aside with a sweep of the hand with no counter-refs at all, as if the editor is just smarter than all of these experts are, and we should just take his word for everything. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it wouldn't help. I have the references, I want to lay them all out on the case page; I thought that is what it is for.  So I would still prefer to use the case page for its purpose. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I went through medcab once before, and the mediator said, "Okay, both sides lay out all your references on the case page. All references that support position A here, and all references that support position B here, and we'll just go with what can be reliably referenced."  It was quick and easy and well-organized. With so many solid references here, I feel it should have been an open and shut case, but the more it gets prolonged, all we see is argument over wikipedia editor's personal opinions on the academic credibilities of these professors, PHDs, etc. who have written these books, and whether entire published schools of thought may even be mentioned as existing hypotheses. The only question I see is, should some wikipedians' unreferenced opinions in judgement of these professors and PHDs' credentials be sufficient to block out all mention of their names? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I suppose distilling would be fair enough, to make it more neutral, go ahead... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for you friendly advises,i should consider it!Kindly Jan Milch,--78.82.198.206 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

hey your right. i aplogize to you and everyone else. i do need some research and find the news article and which officer(s) is sueing. i am going to be out of town for the next few weeks. so thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

MedCab case on Nikon DSLR cameras
Sure I could use all the help I can get. Janus8463 (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up! I really am all for any sort of program like this! --JustHereToHelp (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you!

lectures
It is 15:00 UTC, and I'd like to start talking on irc.freenode.net, #wikipedia-en-lectures.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Zui Quan
NJM has changed the focus of the MedCab. When I filled out the MedCab I asked that the "The outcome of the Third Opinion to be upheld." to conform with WP:CON. As you can tell from the talk page NJM keeps changing the discussion to whether Zui Quan is a style or form. It seems that we will not reach a consensus, and Wiki policy says if we cannot, then no change will be made.

I am also growing tired of him asking if I'm a "Shaolin Do practictioner"? I am not going to give out personal information, and I know he will keep asking more personal questions to find out where.--MahaPanta (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I only had one request. That it not be referred to as "Neo-Zui Quan", it is referred to as Modern and Traditional. Now he is insulting my intelligence. I don't know why the article can't be split into Modern and Traditional sections.--MahaPanta (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2008 (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 (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Lectures
Thanks for reminder! Launching Chatzilla now. Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation on Aratta seems to have failed
Just when I thought you were helping persuade him that NPOV policy means giving all the major viewpoints, and we were so close to closure, I do not understand why he has received encouragement to return to his original position undoing all of our progress and remove all of the viewpoints of scholars he disagrees with. Won't this need to go to the next level now? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you know that the page was unprotected and before long he once again resumed edit warring his version selectively blanking out all the published scholars who disagree with his POV. (Disagreeing with Sumerophile's POV is apparently grounds for censoring these authors, in his eyes)  Edits to this page should only be done by an admin after consensus has been reached, in this case he has not budged an inch from his position.  What in the world was the thinking behind unprotecting it?  It looks like arbitration for sure now, since so far there has been no way to compel him to stop continually removing any references that counter his personal POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have remained civil and I am only arguing that these scholars' views deserve to be represented; am I not allowed to do this without being called uncivil? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * Meticulous, is the correct spelling :) Anthøny  14:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

?
Are you finished mediating RV? It could really use some more of your attention. Apparently, it's really the word "purported" for which JzG will go to bat. Strange. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think, given recent edits to RV, that there is any chance that informal mediation can help now, or should I ask for formal mediation? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 16:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * From the look of it, informal mediation seems to have failed. Is it time to request formal mediation? —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 18:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dispute? Well, the thing is getting worse and worse.  Right now dispute would be over:

"the paranormal belief system" Which doesn't exist.

"though the scientific community considers it pseudoscience." This is not true, the scientific community hasn't spoken on it.

"As with other forms of extra-sensory perception, the scientific community considers claims of remote viewing to have no objective validity." We have nothing on this from the "scientific community," as we do for instance on Astrology.

"Critics explain that clues inadvertantly revealed by researchers explains how information on remote viewing locations can be arrived at." Critics claim this, but that is very much disputed.

The sourcing also sucks.

JzG just claimed I'm the only one with a problem, so reverted the tag again. I don't see that, I'm just the most active one. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 18:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

!!!!! —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

irc
i will have to set it up when there isnt a deadlineDGG (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Mujahideen arbitration
Hi, thank you for taking on the role of mediator in the edit conflict in the Bosnia and Herzegovina section of the Mujahideen article. A couple of points I would like to bring your attention to: Since the mediation process in the Bosnian mujahideen article was recent I have only asked for mediation regarding the defined issue of how the icty appeals chamber's judgement of 22 April 2008 should be interpreted and what effects it should have on the article. I don't see that any other new information has appeared which could affect the text of the article. I would therefore ask you to confine/limit the discussion to this specific issue, otherwise, I fear, it is going to be a very lenghty repeat of all the issues which were raised in the first mediation process. CheersOsli73 (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * the section above is (or should be) an abbreviated summary of the Bosnian mujahideen article.
 * that article went through a lengthy mediation process a couple of months ago (Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-04 Bosnian Mujahideen and Talk:Bosnian mujahideen)
 * the Bosnian mujahideen article is currently protected to prevent edit warring/vandalism
 * many of the same edit conflicts exist in both articles

Lecture
Due to an immediate personal emergency, I will not be able to make the lecture. I am so sorry for the short notice. Circumstances are completely unexpected. Vassyana (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Which does not mean there's no lecture. ;-) are you around? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess you're not. We may have to cancel today then :-( --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Babel userbox
Hey there. I saw from your comment on the Babel talk page that you liked the idea of a learner box for languages. If you look further up the page, you'll see an idea i came up with for the 0.5 rating (like a 1 to 6 rating). here's some examples for you to use as a template:

 J o s h  11:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha, glad you like them. If you want, make some more, and spread the learner movement. :)  J o s h  13:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson
Hi, since it looks like you are mediating Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football), I wondering if you could say whether Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents really should be closed and left to the mediation? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Lectures time
Yeah, we're posting on time for once (40 minutes early). Todays lecture is by Vassyana (an expert mediator), who will be talking about how to deal with conflicts, whether you are a mediator or not. Hope to see you there! --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Lectures
Todays lecture is starting! The topic is "How source experts judge source reliability" and the speaker is DGG. The meeting location for setup is #wikipedia-en-lectures on irc.freenode.net. The lecture will be given over skype. Contact Filll2 or kim_bruning to be invited to the lecture chat also.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment - ArbCom
Thank you for your help in the UDR section. I'm not convinced though that the matter is entirely resolved. Would you be kind enough just to keep a wary eye on it for a couple of days? There is certainly a marked improvement in the atmosphere but comments by one editor have me a little concerned.GDD1000 (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Getting nowhere on this article for the moment. About to make a bold gesture.GDD1000 (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Chrijnelson Arbitration
There is a arbitration regarding Chrijnelson over at WP:Arbitration.Fromos (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)