User talk:Felipec

Mexican general election controversies

I'd like to volunteer to act as your AMA advocate in this case (unless someone is already working on it). If you'd like my help, please reply on my talk page. Walton monarchist89 10:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first stage of dispute resolution is always to try and hammer out a compromise with your opponents. My job is to act as an intermediary in trying to achieve that compromise. In my experience, Wikipedia revolves around sources; if you can quote sources supporting your interpretation, it's very difficult for anyone to argue. So if you can provide me with a list of relevant references, I can start talking to your opponents and try to achieve compromise. Walton monarchist89 10:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has dicho que eres de México - ¿prefieres conversar en español? Walton monarchist89 10:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I have now created a desk for AMA business - from now on, all messages relating to AMA cases should be left on there rather than my talkpage. If you leave a message on there I will still reply on your talkpage, unless you specify otherwise. Walton monarchist89 12:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've looked at the article page and discussion page. I think you have the weight of support on your side - User:Timeshifter seems to hold a minority view on this issue, and also admits limited knowledge about Mexican politics. However, it seems like users such as User:Hari Seldon and User:Magidin have been working to establish a fair compromise, and the article now doesn't read as being particularly biased - for instance, the disputed link to Electoral fraud under "See also" now reads (Inclusion of this wikipedia link does not indicate endorsement of the claims made of electoral irregularities and fraud in the 2006 Mexican general election.) That seems to be fair enough. So generally, it looks like you're getting close to a compromise and don't need advocacy at all. However, if Timeshifter makes any more edits that you violently disagree with, I would advise the opening of a request for comment and the use of a strawpoll. This will allow users to vote on the changes, and based on the general appearance of the discussion page, it looks like there's a consensus on your side. So you're in a strong position where negotiating is concerned. I will keep an eye on the page; please tell me if Timeshifter makes any more biased or unsupported edits. Walton monarchist89 09:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I say, I think you have a strong case against Timeshifter. What you need to do now is give me a list of all the changes you think should be made. We can then start a request for comment and put a strawpoll on the talk page. Since the weight of support is on your side, this will probably be a successful tactic.

Since the debate on the page now seems to have become more civil, can we close the case, or are you still unsatisfied with the state of the article? Walton monarchist89 13:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omegatron

Felipec. I got your message regarding Omegatron. Please see my reply here on my talk page. Greg L (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having issues with him in the Posting style article, and to me it looks like he is not following Wikipedia guidelines; he is selectively using them to achieve his goals while ignoring the things that work against

What "issues" are you having with me? What Wikipedia guidelines am I not following? What does any of this have to do with being an admin? Have I protected the article? Have I revert warred with you over it? Have I blocked you unfairly?

You asked me on my talk page to change the wording of something in the article, I agreed with your reasoning and changed it. What is your complaint here? If you don't like the wording I used, you are completely free to change it, just like any other editor. — Omegatron (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]