Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Promethean (talk | contribs) at 06:43, 8 January 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1 Archive 2

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-29 Enhanced interrogation techniques

I've taken this case. There's an area of the case page where you can summarise your stance - please use this to briefly summarise what you think is going on. Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted an edit of yours.....

Plz see Talk:Glenn Greenwald for my reasoning/request.
--NBahn (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think that your user page is cute!
:-)
--NBahn (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Answer to merger question

I did a check on the two articles and there are only minor differences between the two articles, so what I suggest you do is to replace all the content on International Fortean Organisation with #REDIRECT ] {{R from merge}} to turn it into a redirect to International Fortean Organization, and leave an edit summary of "Close merge request. Merge to ]." On International Fortean Organization, just remove the mergefrom template and use an edit summary of "Close merge request. Merge from ]." If you want, you can add that there was no text to merge. Of course, you'll have to check for double redirects and fix those if they exist. --Bobblehead 16:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism Talk:Crown of Thorns. Atheist trollers are my pet peve, so you can imagine why I'm grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernerd 10 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Given the discussion and my comments on the talk page, I'm not sure why you undid my edit. My concern is that the version you reverted to has accuracy and possible WP:BLP issues in that it suggests that Rezko was under investigation at the time of the land deal (which is not supported by the sources) and that he was investigated and convicted FOR the land deal (which isn't the case). I had therefore reverted to what I understood to be the version in place before the edit-war started (which, as I understand policy, should be the default) and offered to mediate. Can you clarify what I may have missed? Thanks, --Clubjuggle /C 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we missed each other in passing, I've commented on the talk for the reason. To try to summarize here, as far as I could see, that section has been that way for quite a while, so I figure until we have some sort of agreement (which it seems is ridiculously difficult), that we keep it that way. Arkon (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually hold on a second, let me go back and re-read that bit, for some reason I don't recall the concerns you raise being in there. If so, I will self revert. Arkon (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've re-read the change, and I am afraid I don't see how it suggest that Rezko was being investigated during the land deal, or that it was the land deal that he was busted for. It seems to actually go out of its way to state that it is unrelated. Perhaps I am misunderstanding? Arkon (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

First and most importantly, thank you for jumping in to help mediate a reasonable resolution. It's certainly going to be an uphill battle. My concerns are mainly with the formulation of the paragraph, in particular: "The land adjacent to their house was simultaneously sold to the wife of developer Tony Rezko, a fundraiser for several prominent Illinois politicians from both major political parties, and the transaction later drew scrutiny from news outlets over Obama's dealings with Rezko. While Obama was never accused of wrongdoing, Rezko was under investigation for and later convicted of unrelated corruption charges..." would likely lead a typical reader to believe Rezko was under investigation at the time of the land deal. I've seen no sources cited that support that. At a minimum, that formulation probably should be immediately reworded to remove the strong implication.

Ahhh! I see! I'd like to blame it on it being a long day, but sadly I was probably just being sloppy. I didn't really deal with the change in the context of the whole paragraph, just the specific wording of the diff. Yeah, that paragraph is pretty terrible as it stands, not sure the other is -much- better, but I am not particularly comfortable being responsible for the current. I'll go ahead and self revert that one. Thanks for taking the time to explain! Arkon (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

name change

I suggest you change your name. Arkon is a name of a company. You could get banned for that particularly by people looking for an excuse to ban you.

Arkon (individual) Mr. Arkon Mrs. Arkon Arkon2008

Do not attack me. I am trying to help you. Another name with Poland was banned so my name is an attempt to pick a correct name. Poland rules the area east of Germany (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am ok. Arkon (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

please vote to keep . . .

While I am looking for supporters to "keep," please weigh in however you see fit at

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abongo_Obama

There is a strong movement to delete articles on Obama's relatives. This is of special concern to me based on the alleged ties between Obama and Islam--which I believe are overblown.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please look over the current options for Rezko language and pick one to help us get to consensus

This is a form notice, not a personal message. I'm sending it out to the most recent contributors to the Rezko discussion at Talk:Barack Obama. Sorry if this is inconvenient, but we may be close to consensus if we can get your help.

Hi, I've noticed you've been a part of the Rezko discussion but haven't said which of the options now on the table you'd prefer. It would really help us to get to consensus if we could get your input on that. There's been plenty of discussion, but if you have questions, I'm sure other editors would answer them. The four options now on the table are the three in Talk:Barack Obama#Straw poll and Talk:Barack Obama#Scjessey-preferred version (which doesn't contain the word "criticism"). So far, the two most popular versions seem to be Clubjuggle's Version 3 and Scjessey's. Please help us try to wrap this up. Noroton (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Weatherman

Nor does it mean it can stay. Please revert. Grsz 20:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)