User talk:^demon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WELCOME!

Hello, and welcome to my talk page. I will be glad to discuss anything with you. Click here to start a new discussion. Have a great day.

Archives
December 2005 - May 2006 June 2006-October 2006

Contents 1 Another lost mediation 2 missing mediation 3 Deleting mediations 4 My mediation committee nomination 5 Mediation for Dook page, et al 6 Thanks for Accepting 7 Love to help 8 mediations 9 Arbitration for Iran-Iraq War 10 BKWSU 11 RE: Your MedCom Nom 12 RFM: Machismo 13 Socionomics mediation case 14 Mediation DOA 15 Small page edit reverted 16 User: 216.27.165.170 17 Noble change 18 Boy Scout mediation 19 Re:Welcoming 20 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War 21 AWB substing of {{welcome}} 22 Rejected cases 23 Tough job 24 What to do when a participant edits an RfM page? 25 Spring cleaning? 26 Diana Ross Playground 27 Diana Ross 28 Your input is requested 29 Immediate intervention needed 30 Nomination? 31 Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Landmark Education 32 Mediation: Resubmit or edit original?

[edit] Another lost mediation

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus has been created for a while now and nobody has responded. All attempts to contact User:Essjay have resulted in someone telling us that he is on a Wikibreak. As you are listed first on the Mediation committee, could you point as at someone who could help us with this? DJ Clayworth 22:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] missing mediation

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict is being referenced in an RfA. Please restore it from the archive. Carbonate 21:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting mediations

Hi, you're tagging failed mediations for deletion I see. Would it not be better to just redirect them to the archive? I don't like the idea leaving lots of redlinks; many of the pages you're tagged are linked from multiple talk pages. Proto::type 02:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My mediation committee nomination

Thanks for fixerising my nomination, on top of my old one. I appreciate the time you took to sort out my mistake. —Xyrael / 15:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation for Dook page, et al

Greetings - I saw that you opened up the Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Dook, and I wanted to mention, as I had via that talk page, that a compromise was reached. I had asked for information on how to unlist an item and...didn't really get an answer. If you would be so kind as to let me know, I will de-request or whatever process needs to happen on that one. Thanks for your taking up that task, however, and sorry for taking up your time- DukeEGR93 01:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Accepting

Hello ^demon, thanks for being the mediator regarding socionomics. Please let me know what to do and what you need, I'll respond as quickly as I can.

Rgfolsom 15:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Love to help

I'd love to help, but after being accused of "misusing every privilege" and being stripped of admin rights, I don't feel sufficiently empowered to be an active Mediator. Wikipedia's current crop of judges (er, arbitrators) even put me on probation for daring to counter Liberal Bias by inserting Conservative viewpoints into articles on global warming, evolution & intelligent design, and Communist genocide.

If NPOV is dead, how can I mediate? Wikipedia had its chance, but (like the U.N.) has departed from its original ideals. God help it. --Uncle Ed 19:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of backlash; I'm just wondering whether I can be effective. If you have confidence in my ability to perform a mediation, however, I'm willing to step up to the plate. When I *was* an active mediator, I had a (record-setting?) string of successes. --Uncle Ed 19:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me think this over now . . . ^_^ --Uncle Ed 20:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mediations

armando-dailokos was moved out to WP:BLP, caratacus stalled. I won't mediate anymore, I feel the system is suboptimal and there's plenty of other wikiwork to do. -- Drini 22:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration for Iran-Iraq War

To recap thus far they (the two arbiters) found your reasoning flawed not mine. They called it a "shallow reason." That is to say pinning the blame on me for a failure and your rejection. I agree, but if he won't come to the mediation table how is it not valid for arbitration and what is the solution then?

My question is this: why can't a violator be held accountable? Why is the messenger getting killed here?Marky48 21:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

^demon, would a pattern of incivility by the same user (against other Wikipedians, on other topics, as showing character) be relevant information for the arbitration? For instance, the personal attacks on other editors in Talk:Disemvoweling?  – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 07:26, 9 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Why is it that any question of content is a personal attack to some? This is about the edits not the messenger. People defending their choices against all comers are gaming the system with this false attack charge. It's a great diversion, but bad editing slips right on by in the moonlight. That's not what an encyclopdedia wants. The above poster is seeking revenge for challenges made to his editing. Ultimately he won through the same sort of guerilla defenses as in this aritration issue, but still wants revenge.Marky48 18:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Immediately after posting the above comment, Marky48 went back to Disemvoweling (which had been stable for 3.5 days) and once again deleted references: (in chronological order)

• 18:26, 10 November 2006 User talk:^demon (→Arbitration for Iran-Iraq War - Revenge of the editor)
• 18:30, 10 November 2006 Disemvoweling (Not a valid source: two sci-fi bloggers)

"Revenge of the editor", indeed. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:49, 10 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Quote, "I refuse to deal with this user anymore." Uh, ^demon, which one? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 01:42, 11 Nov 2006 (UTC).

[edit] BKWSU

Hi

just to say thanks for trying re [1].

Am I correct in saying that you went to act as mediator on the Brahma Kumaris topic but that *ALL* or *ANY* of the other parties refused to participate?

I would appreciate clarification.

Where can I receive official clarification over the use of an organization's own materials on a topic page? I see absolutely no problem with doing so.

Thank you. 195.82.106.244 10:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Your MedCom Nom

I've replied using Special:Emailuser. Thanks. —Xyrael / 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFM: Machismo

I just realized that the RFM on Machismo is still open (and you accepted the difficult task of mediating). Marsiliano never accepted in the end to go to RFM and instead he got in trouble by repeatedly vandalizing and ended with a block. I think the request should be archived at this point. I had totally forgot about it. How do I do that? Or can you do it yourself? --Sugaar 17:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socionomics mediation case

Hi ^demon, I know you accepted a mediation case on the ongoing revert war going on between Smallbones and Rgfolsom on the Socionomics article. It quieted down for a few days, but now the article is back getting reverted back and forth with little forward progress. I have an opinion on the matter, and if you ask (or email me if you can figure out how to do that) I will be glad to give it to you. I'm also willing to put it in the talk page on the article. (And in fact I did put a little in once about a week or two ago.) I don't understand how these kind of revert wars eventually get stopped... What is the next step to ending the war? Thanks. N2e 04:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

^demon, can you please point me to where I could learn about WP policy/practice relative to how it is advised to best stop/slowDown/moderate a revert war, like the one I referred to above? I don't really want to get into the middle of the fight (tar baby?), but I believe some reasonable outsider needs to review the Socionomics debate and enter in some balanced opinion. Also, what ever happened to the mediation case? Will a result or status get published if I just wait it out? Thanks. N2e 00:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I will try to stand back and patiently wait for the standard wiki-practices to have their hoped-for effect in this great emergent phenomenon we call Wikipedia where self-organizing behavior can result in a spontaneous order. N2e 17:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello ^demon,

I have emailed you (Nov. 21) regarding the socionomics mediation, though you haven't acknowledged the message. On the chance that my email did not arrive, please tell me the status of our mediation. Thank you. Rgfolsom 14:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation DOA

I believe you can remove this request from the calendar of cases needing a mediator. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small page edit reverted

Hi, you reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VPL&diff=next&oldid=84003360... this was not a test but removing a duplicate of "Visible Panty Line" which is already at the top of the page.

[edit] User: 216.27.165.170

I think 216.27.165.170 needs to have a little quiet time. He is continually adding the "locked" template to Mulatto and its associated Talk page, even though they are not locked. He is probably trying to keep other from editing the pages. I just removed the template from both pages. I see that you had warned him already. •DanMS 03:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noble change

The line that you claim to be false acually has some truth. I wanted to add to the page to contribute not to vandalize. see the reference line below.

As early as 1700, the maple leaf served as a symbol of sex celebrating the nature and environment of what is now Canada.

Back in the 1700's the canadian flag was very much a symbol of sexual freedom.

I study canadian culture in college.

Please leave this edit stand. It has merit and adds to the page.

Thanks

[edit] Boy Scout mediation

Hi, just checking in; it's been about a week since you accepted the mediation request on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Boy Scout. Is there anything that I or the other participants need to do before you start? Rlevse seems to have calmed down a bit, so perhaps some discussion is possible. GMcGath 14:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Welcoming

Thanks a lot for the heads up man. Have a great day. :) ↔ ANAS - Talk 14:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk FloNight 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AWB substing of {{welcome}}

Oops, my bad. Thanks for fixing that. z4ns4tsu\^talk 14:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rejected cases

Just realized this (probably because I use the Firefox Signature Extension and thus never alter my capitalization), but apparently MedBot won't respond if you don't capitalize the first letter of the templates; I noticed two outstanding rejected cases and fixed the capitalization, but this is something we'll have to keep in mind for the future. Darn picky bot! ;) Essjay (Talk) 05:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tough job

Just had a nice radio station article written in March 2006 deleted, due to a speedy deletion mark by User:Calton -- who thought the Wikipedia was lifted from a web page -- when it fact the station improved their web page by talking major portions of my Wikipedia article -- maybe Wiki needs a policy on that. ha ha!! Happy holidays ! User:Beatgr 24 November 2006 5:58 UTC

[edit] What to do when a participant edits an RfM page?

Hi, Demon. I've just filed an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), and Elonka (talk • contribs) (one of the disputants in the matter) edited the "Issues to be mediated" section, instead of adding it at "Additional issues to be mediated". What's the correct course of action now? I don't want to jeopardize the case's chances of being accepted. I asked Essjay, but I notice that he says that he's busy, so I thought I'd ask you as well. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The situation has worsened — there's now an edit war on the RfM page itself. Some guidance from a MedCom member would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Demon. Right now I'm trying to get the participants to talk out a neutral wording on the RfM's talk page. Have we completely shot our chances of getting mediation accepted? There are so many participants, I'm worried that we'll never be able to get a wording that's acceptable to everybody, even though I do think that everybody wants a resolution to the situation, and is prepared to submit to mediation. What should we do about the RfM page itself? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Josiah and I are admins. We can lock it for you. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Although it's currently in the state I don't want it so it's difficult to claim bias!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

<-- A I have declined a request for unprotection of the mediation page, please contact me if you want this to occur. Gnangarra 08:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just dropping by to say that you seem to have the matter under control, and I'm staying out of it. When the page needs unprotection, let me know. Essjay (Talk) 03:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that this RfM has been unprotected, since it has been locked for about a week, could you clarify when exactly the deadline is for accepting it? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spring cleaning?

Well, it would be, if you lived Down Under. If you still have energy left after this whirlwind of housecleaning on your userpage, please consider coming over to help me get rid of old magazines, books I'll never read again, and bric-a-brac I've been too sentimental to throw away. Not that my userpage has this problem.... (Drat, maybe I should have paid you that $50 to find out how far away you live before asking, but then I've never dealt with PayPal.) Pardon my snotty cheerful irrelevance and irreverence; when a neighbor beats the dusty parlour rug out on the front lawn, I'm the brat who'll shout "ouch!" at each stroke, or sing something to the rhythm, so perhaps you're getting off easy by comparison.   ;) – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 05:38, 29 Nov 2006 (UTC).

In reply to your reply: suggestions? Dunno; you can see I haven't done much with my own (it started with the single line "An occasional visitor"); but I look at beautiful userpages like Essjay's and take mental notes, learning wikicoding from their example. I'm sure you've seen pages you admired as much; as Heinlein said of storywriting techniques, steal from the best and file off the serial numbers. I don't know whether our tastes are similar, so any other suggestion I make might be useless to you. That said, at the moment I'm leaning toward a utilitarian userpage for myself that can fit on one screen, so if I add much more information, I'd probably use small text in multiple columns, with few and small (if any) graphic elements or boxes. This would be much less pretty than a userpage like Essjay's, so the idea probably demonstrates either a deficient aesthetic sense or a low aesthetic priority on my part. (Also, currently I'm indef-blocked from Commons on a false charge of "making threats", so I can't add my own graphics.) – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 06:01, 30 Nov 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Diana Ross Playground

My contribution was not vandalism, please see the talk section of said article for my arguments about what Bernhardt was saying and why is diva (negative and unsourced usage) okay but bitch not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.183.100.99 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Diana Ross

My words are not nonsense, you obviously cannot read English.

see talk thereof--24.183.100.99 23:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Immediate intervention needed

One of the signatories to the mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), Yaksha (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is continuing to act in bad faith, by continuing to unilaterally move hundreds of articles, without consensus or any attempt to proceed through WP:RM. Do you have any authority to request a block, or to put a "freeze" on such moves while the mediation process is on-going? Or what other action do you recommend? Multiple attempts to ask Yaksha to stop have not been successful, and I am concerned that unless there is immediate intervention, Yaksha is just going to continue on, moving hundreds more pages, escalating the dispute and further complicating the situation. --Elonka 19:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I have requested a block at WP:ANI, in case you would like to participate: WP:ANI#Requesting block for non-consensus page moves. --Elonka 19:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.  :) --Elonka 20:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Yaksha is not complying. :/ Do you have a recommendation for a next step? --Elonka 01:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood, I think. At least: My understanding, is that MEDCOM has no official authority on anything, it can only make recommendations, but it's entirely voluntary as to whether or not anyone has to pay attention to those recommendations, correct? At no point (to my knowledge) did I say that anything coming out of MedCom was binding, nor did I say that you'd given any kind of "ruling" on the guideline. There are a few people claiming that I said all kinds of things, but there have been a lot of bogus "Elonka said" claims throughout this process.  ;) In reality, I believe that I've been trying to be very careful as to my interpretation of what you said, and I've been very carefully always linking to diffs as backup.[2][3][4][5][6] If you think that anything that I said was misleading, I do apologize, and would blame it on the "hurried" nature of my posts. This "time pressure" situation is frustrating, as rather than having a day or so to contemplate an action, it seems that rapid responses are necessary because of how quickly these moves are being pushed through.

In any case, I see that the mediation was rejected, which saddens me. :/ If you do have any recommendations for how to further proceed at this point, I would be most grateful for any advice. --Elonka 02:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"MedCom has confirmed that there is not currently consensus, and has issued a "cease and desist" on further moves" Gee, that sure sounds like you said they've given a "ruling". --Milo H Minderbinder 13:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I apologize if my comments to you were harsh, one in particular was made in response to what was claimed that you said instead of what you actually said. I didn't go back and read your original comment before posting my response, and that was a mistake on my part. I respect your opinion, thanks for the clarification. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination?

Ok, you said you fixed the page where I blanked my nomination. I really dont even want anyone to know I ever nominated myself... I'm actually quite embarrassed I did that, with what little experience I have. That's why I blanked the page. I dont even want there to be a record of it...Any way you can remove it?--Cookie 08:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, ^demon. I would advise against blanking it and instead leave it as a normal archive, although I think that either way would be acceptable, as long as a statement is placed to look in the history. (I'm not sure if his intention is to not have the page viewable at first, or just not in the records, but if you do decide to keep it blanked, I would recommend at least having a link to the history on the page.) However, I'm inclined to keep the nomination as it is: it will always be in the history, and attempting to hide it wouldn't really achieve anything, in my opinion. We could instead explain to him that if he continues making good contributions, it's unlikely that anyone would bring up a failed nomination here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Landmark Education

While I support the effort of folks to resolve the dispute I don't consider myself to be an involved party. As I said at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Landmark Education, I've only been slightly enagaged, mostly some talk page comments a month ago. If you as mediator think that my participation in the mediation would help then I'd be willing to then I'll be happy to help. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation: Resubmit or edit original?

Hi there. I have a question about a mediation request I recently put up: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Toyotomi_Hideyoshi. Unfortunately, I didn't include the names of the "Involved Parties" as I thought they'd do that themselves as/if they agreed to mediatation. My question is whether I can edit that mediation request page or should I resubmit it from scratch? Thanks. Geeman 10:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)