Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:26, 28 June 2006

• old talk User talk:Jbolden1517/Archive1

older talk at: /helpfile

old editwar at edit wars

notes as /notes

Anonymous Contributor on EN Page

Who is the IP who made new revisions? Isn't the correct procedure to jump into the Talk Page first before making changes? Thanks! Thelma Bowlen 04:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't OK those changes, but didn't know if they were wrong or not. They also had nothing to do with the you vs. Blueboy battle and it was an IP not a user so I just let it go. Feel free to revert, partially revert or keep. jbolden1517 11:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User 203.124.2.7 (talk • contribs • blocks) is registered to Singnet, an ISP owned by Singapore Telecommunications Ltd and is shared by multiple users. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for info! Thelma Bowlen 06:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Canadian

It is ok to get involved with editing the article? I stayed out of doing any edits, period... to show my neutrality. I am afraid that reverting the article would cause some-one to accues me of being on "the other side". How do I avoid this... I am not going to revert anything until I understand how to respond to these kinds of accusations... I don't know what to do if my netrality is put in question. Help on either would be very useful.

Forgot to sign. Eagle talk 04:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC). Please post on my page, as you did last time:)

Perl Mediation

I see that the Perl mediation is now closed and that -Barry- has demanded the return of all of his edits and that the content dispute should be resolved by Arbitration Committee. This is rather disappointing. I'd hate to see the Perl page ruined due to the actions of two bad apples. Where can a new mediator be requested?

I think it's best to wait until Pudgenet's RFAR is concluded before appointing a new mediator. Ideogram 13:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Since, as -Barry– has said, the RFAR has nothing to do with Perl, and I have not edited Perl since a week before mediation even began, and two or three weeks before the Perl page was "protected", I fail to see what one has to do with the other. Pudge 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, you may also wish to correct the mention that Pudge identified -Barry- as Wassercrats. -Barry- has self-indentified himself on several occasions. Steve p 13:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

--Pilot|guy 22:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, the removal of comments

Uh, you recently removed the comments of User:The prophet wizard of the crayon cake from the Medcab talk page. Everyone's opinion is valid in this discussion, whether people have not had extensive mediation experience or not. Even if someone hasn't mediated before and was simply a disputant, their opinion would be valid as it would show how someone's view of the current mediation process is. If you don't mind, I think it's best if we leave the comments there as they don't hurt the discussion in any way. Cowman109 02:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I mind but I won't re-delete if you want to restore. I think we need a real conversation and "I don't like formal" over and over and over again doesn't do anything, and it shouldn't be encouraged. If people don't feel welcome to make stupid comments, good. But I'm meaner than you are :-) Besides I think he's a good example of what I'm worried about in terms of right for random people to "help". So go ahead and restore. You can be the good cop. jbolden1517 02:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright then. A nice way to balance things out. :) Cowman109 02:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ooh ooh can I play? I want to be the REALLY BAD COP. Ideogram 02:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm definitely starting to like you :-) :-) jbolden1517 02:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Cowman probably thinks you're leading me astray. Ideogram 02:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

...you don't own a whip and handcuffs, do you? ~Kylu (u|t) 01:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm married doll, otherwise I'd take you up on the offer :-) jbolden1517 01:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh poor little innocent me, fallen in with these WICKED WIKIPEDIA folk ... Ideogram 01:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

reopening archived case

I need to reopen an archived case. Do I just cut and paste the entry from the archive back to the cases page? Ideogram 17:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Flag it as "reopened" in description. Make sure to check for any "closing out comments" and make sure the talk page reflects your changes jbolden1517 17:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Which talk page? Ideogram 17:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk page for the article jbolden1517 21:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wimpy....

Understood. I will do as you suggest. Thanks for the advice. Eagle talk 18:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Note... thanks for bringing up the deletion issue agian... Now User:Canadia is asking how do it. (thus bringing up an old debate.... especially after the productive critisism above). Eagle talk 18:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

To start an AFD he needs a user name. The goal is to get him to be an account not an IP. Then he needs to make a case for deletion (under what criteria).... You'll move from a bunch of IPs arguing back and forth to a bunch of real accounts having to make verifiable statements of policy regarding criteria for deletion.

The goal is to achieve consensus. A quicky agreement that some people hold to and others don't won't hold more than a few weeks.

19:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism Mediation

Regardless of the lack of a positive and consensus-based outcome, I do want to thank you for your time and effort in helping the various editors. Your efforts are appreciated even if the results are not necessarily pleasing to everyone. Thanks! -- Avi 14:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Avi. I am feeling a bit bad that we cannot come to some conclusion. I actually do not have enough time to dedicate to the subject and so all I can deliver to support my claims is my emotional personal POV. And I am sorry for that. I don't feel however, that either side is willing to let this article rest. I may or may not return to the Messianic Judaism page. I do know that, to the goal of those that are so-called anti-missionaries, the page in its current state could not be used by any MJ as a definition of who we are as a people, neither what we believe. So at this point I feel as if they've won. Anyway, thanks for your attempts, JBolden. Perhaps amongst ourselves one side or the other will break and something will subside. G-d's will be done. Rivka 17:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Taiwan

Hi. I left a message on Cowman's talk page, but I remembered that he is busy in real life, so may I please ask you your opinion?

Absolutely.

As a brief backgorund to the case, user:Nrtm81 wants the portal to be named Portal:Taiwan, whereas User:Chiang Kai-shek thinks that may be too political, and wants to make sure that there is no confusion that Taiwan isn't a country in it's own right.

Nrtm81 has now said "I better not keep considering things. My stance is Portal:Taiwan, no compromise on the name of the portal". He also said "Maybe it was my mistake to ask for mediation since I didn't want a change in the portal name" because of this I feel that this line of mediation has hit a dead end. I wanted to know wheather I should refer this case to Med Com, remove my comments for ArbCom, and let them deal with it (though they can't decide it's name, which is what Ntrm81 wants) or just leave the case open in case anything changes? An RfC has been filed, but so far there is no response, so I'm not holding my for any other user to come up with a compromise. As this is my first case, I would be really greatful for any help or advise that you can give me. Thank you very much. Yours, The Halo (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow you picked a tough first case. First off your comments to arbcom are not unreasonable, that at the time the move to arbcom was made it was premature. There obviously was not enough conversation on this issue. So so far I don't see anything wrong with your actions. I don't think you should be deleting comments after judges have voted. You considered yourself a party to the dispute at the time I think you should stand by your words.

Next on the issue of resolving this you can't. There is a very high probability that sometime over the next 50 years millions or tens of millions of people of people are going to die over the issue of whether Taiwan is a country or not. You are not going to get them to agree on the underlying issue. Where you might be successful is getting them to divert the issue. The portal is about "the territory referred to in the west as Taiwan" or "the territory its residents used to refer to as Taiwan" or... some sort of neutral language. So I think mediation could work here to solve the naming issue.

There is a policy issue here, as everyone is mentioning. that is what to do with political entities whose legality is disputed. That's a great way to solve the problem and you are unlikely to be able to have any effect on moving this issue forward.

My recommendations are:

1. stand by your comments to arbcom
2. offer to attempt to mediate a compromise at a later date if they are interested
3. offer to pass your notes up to medcom if they would like to go that route

jbolden1517 12:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I have struck through my newest comments on the ArbCom. I didn't think of it at the time, but you're right, it looked amatuerish making new comments from a changed POV. I shall also complete your other suggestions as regards an offer of further mediation and passing my notes up to Medcom, if they want. Agreed that it was a tough first case btw :) !

Once again, thank you very much for your advise. I only hope that the next case that I'm on is easier. Yours, with thanks, The Halo (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Westminster Mediation

Please see User:Roydosan Westminster mediation. Hope this is acceptable to all parties. Roydosan 09:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

CSICOP mediation

Thanks for your time and efforts in mediating the CSICOP edit dispute. KarlBunker 14:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ditto. I appreciate your efforts in bringing some closure to the CSICOP problem. It is because of work by people such as you that WP is such a marvellous resource. Maustrauser 01:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both. That's really nice to hear :-)

But meanwhile, Davkal is back. Do you have some mediative input or question for one or both of us to respond to? --KarlBunker 10:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

TERRORIST USERNAME

Why is a Wikipedian permitted to use a terrorist username (User:UpTheRa)?? In case you did not know it, "Up the 'Ra" is a pro-Irish Republican Army slogan.

This is in violation of Misplaced Pages rules barring "provocatine" usernames.

Why is this tolerated?? As an American, I am offended, particularly given the consensus that has emerged post-9/11. If I used an offensive term for a username. I have no doubt I would be blocked immediately.

Thank you for your attention.

Gary 19:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed

I entrusted you temporarily with the oversight over day to day running of the medation cabal.

Unfortunately, you saw fit to threaten a colleague per email, thus proving yourself unworthy of this trust.

You have been removed from the mediation cabal pages as a direct result, and the mediation cabal will now deny any further connection with you. I do not recognise you as a mediator, and suggest strongly to other wikipedians to do the same.

I wish you good luck editing other parts of wikipedia.

Kim Bruning 17:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)