User talk:Jbolden1517/Archive1

old editwar at edit wars

notes as /notes

anti-Brahmanism offer

jbolden1517:

First let me thank you for offering to mediate the dispute Anti-Brahmanism article. I apologize for not responding sooner.

I believe that wikipedia articles should be fair and unbiased, and what is written is based on facts and not personal views.

While I have the facts, and I have researched them carefully, I'm afraid I can not match the eloquence of Anirvan. He writes much better and can work very fast.

Sometimes in some societies, some forms of biases can become 'acceptable', if they are expressed frequently and if they are promoted by some important organizations. I think such biases should be presented factually without an attempt to sugar-coat them.

Before I take your time in the mediation effort, can I see some examples of mediation efforts, so that i will how it works?

Thank you for your understanding.

--ISKapoor 05:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Olbermann Thank you for attempting to mediate the Keith Olbermann external link webpage. I carefully reviewed the listings for CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and the listings for news pesonalities including: Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Anderson Cooper, and Shephard Smith. None of these sites, save for Fox News had a single link to a fan forum or message board. I removed the link to the message board at the Fox News message board. However, since you have ruled that the keitholberman.org site should remain, I will be returning it to the edits, along with the websites fan forums suggested by others for Keith Olbermann which have higher post counts, memberships, and have been in existence far longer that www.keitholbermann.org. Thank you for your ruling on this. Jeff

API

Either

API redirects to API (disambiguation) or
API redirects to Application programming interface and then there must be a note "API" redirects here. For other uses, see API (disambiguation).

IMHO. Apparently you don't like the second option, I went for the first one. --Edcolins 13:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean but I think we are agreeing. Case 1 is what was happening which was the reason for my edit. jbolden1517 ^Talk 13:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that cryptic message. I meant that, after your edit, there was no way to get from API to API (disambiguation), either through a redirect or through a proper message on Application programming interface. That was unfortunate... It's fixed now. --Edcolins 16:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YTMND article

I'm not sure if this mediation is really turning out productively. I was expecting someone to help us come to a compromise on the section rather than deleting it. You can't judge that sole section by Wikipedia content standards without judging the rest of the article as well. Sorry for the confusion Dr. Ke 00:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming no response for a day or two from the others I'll close it. I'll warn you now though its going to be rough going if there are no 3rd party sites talking about YTMND. The whole article may end getting deleted as "not notable" after you put a ton of work in, or it may get trimmed terribly. You may not be hearing what you want to, but I'm not refusing to mediate the way you want to be a prick I'm doing it to help you build a better article.

Benson, Vermont

Thanks for the clarfication about what to do in the Benson, Vermont case, I'll go the admin route. I appreciate your time. Jessamyn (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Feel free to quote me from your talk page, or from the case or I'll be happy to post to your admin request if needed. jbolden1517 ^Talk 13:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

Keep up the good work in handling MedCab cases. Here's a smile for you! Cowman109 ^Talk 19:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowman109 ^Talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to two other people, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

"Administrative close"

I just thought I'd like to bring up your using of the words "administrative close" when you close several MedCab cases. I myself find this a bit misleading, no offense, so I'd recommend using a more detailed description of the closure (for example, "closed -- no need for mediation". If no such description is possible I would just use the word 'closed', as the word administrative seems to imply that a Wikipedia Administrator came alonng and closed a case for some reason. In other words, I find it a bit misleading, and I'd suggest you try to avoid the use of the word administrative if possible. I hope that made sense - I'm kind of confused by what I just said myself, heh :) Cowman109 ^Talk 18:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant it in the sense of a mediation cabal administrator. That is if there were a separate administration and mediation staff then administrative closes would be cases closed during the administrative phase. I'm using it to mean that for some reason mediation isn't appropriate (depends on case).

I'll switch to some other term though. jbolden1517 ^Talk 19:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. Happy editing! Cowman109 ^Talk 19:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True Torah Jews

In VaYoel Moshe Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum explicitly declared that the Zionists violated the three oaths, and thereby caused the Holocaust, as well as all violence in modern Israel, as a result: "...it has been these Zionist groups that have attracted the Jewish people and have violated the Oath against establishing a Jewish entity before the arrival of the Messiah. It is because of the Zionists that six million Jews were killed."[1]

How about "An Open Letter to President Bush" for a start, isn’t that addressed to a secular audience [2]

As per the JPS bible, I will have to admit I am not an expert on English translations to the bible if you elaborate more I might be able to answer

Bloger 02:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been on this site 5 days. You use a few hasidic expressions poorly and don't know basic stuff. I don't know whether you are a white power guy, a left wing anti zionist, an arab antizionist, a complete kook but I see no reason to educate you on how to do a better job faking it next time. You ain't even close though, think about how much religious education the average Satmar would have by age 40, on the order of 20,000 hours of study. You aren't going to be able to fake that. jbolden1517 ^Talk 03:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bashing instead of answering it shows that not like the article you are notable and not a fake

Bloger 04:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hannity/Our Creator

What happens in the "our Creator" discussion really depends on if a "Criticisms" section is going to be included in the Sean Hannity page. If there is no criticism section then there is no place for the discussion of "our Creator" and it ends there. However, if a "criticisms" section is placed back on the page then I truely believe that I have shown the criticisms about "our Creator" to be verifiable and worthy of inclusion of that section. DanielZimmerman 20:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Olbermann Thank you for attempting to mediate the Keith Olbermann external link webpage. I carefully reviewed the listings for CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and the listings for news pesonalities including: Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Anderson Cooper, and Shephard Smith. None of these sites, save for Fox News had a single link to a fan forum or message board. I removed the link to the message board at the Fox News message board. However, since you have ruled that the keitholberman.org site should remain, I will be returning it to the edits, along with the websites fan forums suggested by others for Keith Olbermann which have higher post counts, memberships, and have been in existence far longer that www.keitholbermann.org. Thank you for your ruling on this. Jeff

Keith Olbermann

Hi JBolden--You issued a Cabal ruling on the Keith Olbermann page but actually, the users on that page reached a compromise yesterday to list a seperate sub-section under links for the message boards--all of them, not just the one you said could remain (there are 5 total). I also got a second opinion yesterday on this (see my user talk page) and the person responded to me by saying that they felt the idea of listing all five of the message boards was a good, workable compromise. However, someone else (Waffle Iron) removed that entire subsection yesterday, not being fully aware of what had gone on history wise. Dr. Mike readded his link this morning, I edited it out again and simply did not have time to go back and add all the links again, however I propose and Dr. Mike has agreed on the discussion pages that listing them all is acceptable. Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not and might possibly be confused about two sites with similar names. One is www.olbermann.org. That is a website which is content rich and has many articles about Keith Olbermann but does not have a message board. The second is www.keitholbermann.org and it is purely a message board. If we're talking about only allowing one "fan" site here than that one fan site should be olbermann.org, and not a link to message board, and surely not to one that as I found in my research yesterday, is not, as its owner claims, the largest, the oldest, or the most heavily visited.

Yes I've been lurking as you guys have been talking. I was fine with the 5 links (you'll notice I corrected them and reformatted 2 of them didn't work in your version. I'm very happy with the direction this is going. People are getting real accounts. They are talking to one another not at one another. Real progress. As you add the other sites make sure the ko.com site stays on even if other people pull it. Since you had originally been opposed this shows good faith to the other side. It will help to establish a cooperative environment on the talk pages which will result in better quality content for the article. As for the confusion I did't know about the Olberman.org, but ko.org seemed to be what the debate was about. jbolden1517 ^Talk 19:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and glad to know you're monitoring. I hope that this will work. I really didn't mean to set off such a firestorm. And thank you too on the how-to's on how to sign my name. I could not figure out what I was doing wrong. JeffBerg 20:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)JeffBerg[reply]

Sure I'm going to monitor. You didn't set off a firestorm I saw posts going back February about this issue. As far as I can tell the guy who set off this storm was William Graham. He's the one who started with the wiki lawyering and thus created the combative tone . Something like 150 posts of:

"I have the premier site" / "No your content sucks".

"Site X beats site y on criteria Z" / "yeah but criteria V is more important and so we should have site Y"

for 3 months. In one day that's starting to change. You are all unanimous I'm ignorant jerk who just doesn't understand the complexity of the situation and to compensate you have to talk, compromise and now even forming a community. You aren't 64.12.117.9 but instead Jeff Berg who is working on becoming a leader. 192.111.52.40 is become Dr. Mike and we can start to work on his "issues" about who you guys are in other contexts "harassing users, scientologists, run rival sites...." My guess is he knows a lot about Keith Olbermann and has a lot to add once he no longer has to keep fighting to get his site listed.

Also since you liked my comment about the 4~ next one. When responding to stuff indent by starting all your paragraphs with a colon (:).

Your doing good on this is. Nice research, nice list of sites. Keep it up. BTW you didn't tell me if you were monitoring or not so I'll leave another message jbolden1517 ^Talk 23:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I am monitoring and have already had to restore two links which someone decided to delete (both to the quick topics pages-strange). And i'll keep on monitoring as the new policy is: all or nothing. And thanks for the tip. I'm trying to get my Wiki skills up to speed and appreciate all the help I can get. JeffBerg 23:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)JeffBerg[reply]

Didn't mean to step in and cause a problem, I was actually directed over there from a ticket to OTRS. Happy to leave it in capable hands :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 02:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS is short for Open-source Ticket Request System. Its a kind of funnel for all email requests about Wikipedia or the Wikimedia foundation; there's a short explanation over at m:OTRS. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 02:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for nominating me! I have responded to the questions in the template. Do you think it looks alright, or would you recommend I add something else to it? Thamls. Cowman109 ^Talk 19:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think its good. I might add more information about your anti vandalism work. I hope you get it! jbolden1517 ^Talk 20:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that and add it to the list. Thanks again! Cowman109 ^Talk 20:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexican hate groups

Hi Jbolden1517, I am trying to get a consensus on this page. Right now it looks as thought the AFD will fail, as some want to delete and some wish to merge/rename (thus no consensus). I see the content as being clearly POV, but not everyone does. Can you take a quick look at this page again and expand upon you comments. I would like to see either an outright delete, or a merge/rename, but right now we are headed towards neither. Thanks much Brimba 15:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. What do you need me to say to indicate support for merge/rename? I'm reading my statement as clear support for the rename to "Mexican-American Political Organizations" but I'd be happy to add any verbiage to further clarify this. jbolden1517 ^Talk 15:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma's response

Took her long enough, didn't it? I was about to wonder if I'd called her bluff. Blueboy96 21:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Our exchange on mediation

Seriously, I have no idea what happened on the mediation thread, or why I suddenly ended up being treated like I was a troll out to cause trouble. I made one contribution to the thread, and you immediately assumed bad faith. I have no problem with Blueboy, and wrote only to highlight what I thought was a problem with collating evidence to build an original case. I admitted it was based on a first reading, and that my thoughts should be taken tentatively. I am genuinely puzzled (and quite upset, as I have never been treated like this on Wikipedia before). David L Rattigan 15:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity mediation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-15_Christianity

We could use some fact searching for Str's views.

KV 19:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what specifically are you asking for? In other words which view? jbolden1517 ^Talk 20:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A modern, mainstream Christian view. It's noted as the second compromise in the mediation with fact tags on the statements. I'm not 100% sure that I have his views right though, he is on Wikibreak. If you can help, it would be appreciated.

KV 01:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK done. Just so you understand I'm not a Christian. jbolden1517 ^Talk 17:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perl Mediation

Thanks for deleting Barry's off-topic rant about me and Scarpia. As it was directed at me, I had to respond to his lies, because I am sure if *I* deleted it, Barry would have used that from now until eternity as evidence of how I am evil.

If you're going to go through with this process, you should really focus on the real issues, and delete a lot more of the crap on that page that is entirely beside the point. Specifically: how can popularity possibly be quantified? And if it can possibly be quantified, does the offered data -- which merely does a few Google searches, and comes from a company that sells solutions for languages other than Perl -- do that? And why should the process of consensus that has previously been used to exclude this data be questioned in the first place, let alone thrown out? I've spent a lot of words on there defending the consensus decision to exlude Barry's popularity junk, and you've not responded to it, and have instead improperly and incorrectly asserted that popularity should be on the page, which you are not in a position to do in the first place. Pudge 02:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "off-topic rant" is here for those interested. You wouldn't discuss the issue on the talk page of the article in question and you deleted the message I left on your talk page without responding. If you're willing to discuss this in either of those places, or to get mediation, let me know. Currently, I'm deciding whether to submit this to arbitration as a separate case or combine it with the Perl arbitration case that's coming. -Barry- 16:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's my user talk page. I could not care less what you have to say to me, and I will continue to delete anything you post there. This in no way justifies polluting other pages, as you well know. Pudge 15:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Steve p 00:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add comments to the Perl Mediation pages? Ideogram 02:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that RFAR#Pudgenet has been accepted, what are ArbCom's options for resolving the matter? Ideogram 08:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-27_Notability_(fiction)

Hey there,

I have taken over from Cowman as the unofficial mediator on this case. Just to let you know it aint dead. Reyk _YO! 08:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost page.

When making new pages like User talk:Jbolden1517 Signpost, make sure to follow your name with a forward slash, i.e. User talk:Jbolden1517/Signpost. That way, it appears under your name, and not one that could potentially be another contributors'. Ral315 (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. I also moved pages to User:Jbolden1517/New anti-Semitism (case study: Michael Neumann), User:Jbolden1517/Westminster, and User:Jbolden1517/anti-Brahmanism. Those should be all of them, I think. Ral315 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

advice on mediating sought

I am planning to help medcabal by mediating a case. Any pointers you can give me would be appreciated. Ideogram 08:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:jbolden1517/NotesOnMediation

and I'll be happy to comediate with you on your first one.

Thanks for the compliment. I rather enjoy this. Ideogram 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many cases is too many? :-) Ideogram 10:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally take about 2 active cases at a time. Most cases that aren't closed soon start to slow down after the first 2 weeks or so. I find keeping 1/2 dozen open at a time isn't very difficult providing I don't pack them on too quickly in the beginning. jbolden1517 ^Talk 13:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello, Jbolden1517/Archive1, and thank you for the supportive vote and very kind words on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 84/1/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months, but welcome any and all feedback and suggestions on how I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! - Kukini 13:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

closed extension topology

Could you please add a reference, e.g. a textbook or something. Thanks. Dmharvey 02:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you're reasonably new around here, a couple of other pointers. The References section is used for things like books and articles, not links to other wikipedia articles. The See also section is used for links to other wikipedia articles. I notice some of the other articles you've worked on do not conform to these conventions, you might want to try and fix them up. Also you might want to skim over Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics), I direct your attention especially to the section titled "Special symbols". Enjoy. Dmharvey 02:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha sorry to bombard you with comments on that article. You should consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Participants. And check out Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Mathematics, where a lot of us hang out. Dmharvey 03:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 09:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab Positions & Elections

I would imagine that at the moment the best course of action would be to label your positions as "interim" until we can actually have the elections. Personally, I might suggest that you have at least one admin be a chair-level member, that way they can review deleted pages and their histories in the event that MedCab itself is damaged.

Do you know of one that wants to run? I'll drop out if one wants the job.

Elections are a good idea, but recall that since this is a Cabal and not a formal group, the electoral pool would consist of all the editors that happen to find the election.

At least IMHO it would be open to mediators not editors.

Personally, I think I'd ask Kim and Essjay to oversee the elections (they're both neutral, fair, and well-respected).

Kim is looking for someone higher up. Essjay runs medcom. We'd have to talk a little and see how he sees the relationship since that may raise questions but basically I'm OK with the idea.

Of course, that's just my $0.02! :D

If there's anything I can do during this time, please don't hesitate to ask. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good.

interthreaded comments, omg! o.o

From WP:MEDCAB:

"Below is a list of the cabalists involved in maintaining this wiki page; please note some cabalists don't post here, but will magically rise to the call of mediation simply by having this page on their watchlists. :-)"

The problem is determining who the "invisible mediators" might be. One potential solution might be:

Voting in this election comes at a price. If you vote in this election, you agree to be called upon to mediate a dispute in the future. If you don't wish to assist in mediating a dispute, please do not vote. Thank you.

What'cha think? Also, "voting" might or might not be accurate. Are you having a vote or the typical Wikipedia-style Discussion to form a consensus?

Hey, can I get dibs on "clerk"? MedCab tends to get a lot of ... ah, ill-considered cases, it seems, since there's no case vetting. I can try to sort out the chaff cases, leave more legitimate cases for other mediators.

ttyl, ~Kylu (u|t) 04:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks from Samir

Dear Jbolden1517, thanks so much for your support during my recent successful request for adminship. I really appreciate it and look forward to serving Wikipedia in my new capacity. Take care -- Samir धर्म 08:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the Maranatha evidence

I already mentioned this on the talk page, but it's getting pretty damn cumbersome I thought I'd mention it here as well--I'm thinking of moving most of the Maranatha evidence to the Maranatha Campus Ministries article. There's so much evidence there that it's really beyond the scope of what it looks like the Every Nation article's turning out to be. Blueboy96 15:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not part of the case. I should comment though most of the WP:OR issues will apply there. Besides you've proven most everything. Not sure why you are unhappy with victory. jbolden1517 ^Talk 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

brit milah

Again, I didn’t write the entire article except for one part and the one who wrote it is responsible for citation witch he gives very clearly in my opinion.

And if you are not satisfied with the citations he gave make a request for more instead of deleting it and attacking personally and not even in the right direction since I didn’t write it.

The part I wrote is quoted from the books that I mention in the reference and is public for everyone to see for themselves.

I understand that you cannot read Hebrew given your poor knowledge of Judaism as is proven by your not knowing that metzitzah is a vital part of brit milah.

Bloger 17:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cases

I moved a couple cases back to "in need of mediators" ... as far as I can tell, geo.plrd took the cases and didn't do anything with them. They're in need of review and/or mediation (unless it's been closed otherwise, of course).

There are quite a few cases at the top of the page that are older, do you know if they're in need of archiving or closing?

Thanks, sorry to pester!

List of all "Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal" pages, for convenience. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006-03-19 Talk at Redshift in mediation: Nick_Y. 12 April 2006 Active 22:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This case was live about a month ago.

2006-04-20 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Westminster and other pages for Catholic diocese and bishops

This case is live. Its taking a long time since one of the participants had a death in the family plus it was a complex issue to establish ground rules

Which other cases are you worried about? jbolden1517 ^Talk 02:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're happy with the status of them, so am I! :)

Mostly I just wanted to see if any of the cases near the top possibly hadn't been closed by accident. Any luck on the whole voting issue yet? ~Kylu (u|t) 03:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim seems to want more time to find someone. I want to make sure there is a spot for Cowman. Do you want the deputy slot? Anyway if you want we can have an election. But I am going with the mediators only. jbolden1517 ^Talk 05:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of an odd bird. I really don't mind doing the actual administrative work, but am a bit shy in accepting a title, especially when it might end up with me getting undue attention. I get enough attention offline, here I'd really just like to clean up the list and such if that'd be okay? 206.246.160.221 06:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC) (Resigning, I guess the cookie expired.) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely its OK! Please keep helping you are doing great! jbolden1517 ^Talk 16:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

failed mediation

2006-06-13 Red Hot Chili Peppers has failed. The issue now is how to deal with the fact that anonymous users are constantly adding external fansite links and edit-warring over them without discussion and in defiance of consensus. I was hoping to ask for semi-protection but apparently policy does not allow it. Can you advise? Ideogram 21:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many anonymous users and how many in your consensus? jbolden1517 ^Talk 23:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three distinct IP addresses during the mediation and four or five in the consensus. Ideogram 23:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That ain't a consensus. 3 against 4 to 5. I'd try and get the real users to agree to something in line with the IPs. You have a mediation to conduct. BTW encourage the IPs to become real users. jbolden1517 ^Talk 23:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I communicate with anonymous users who ignore the talk page? And in the past they've added different fansite links and edit-warred with each other removing opposing fansite links. Ideogram 23:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Canadian

The mediation is not failed... it's just not going anywhere. I think the revert wars have died down a bit... but that is about it. What I am seeing is the whole argument going back to square one. Particurally, if one feels the article should be deleted and another one does not, how do I get across this gap. I can't think of anything to get them to agree to...(The one that wants the article deleted does not seem too eager to try to improve the article. Frankly I can't see how to proceed.

Note: I posted for help when I saw the debate went back to square one. Also at the same time I posted a request for a third opinion. Thanks for looking into this... this is my first case :). Eagle talk 05:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on my talk page would be great... or you can directly handle it. (Note: They acknoledge me as a nuetral party and have done everything I asked them to do. [except resolve the issue])... so it may be preferable to just post on my talk page as I am established. Eagle talk 05:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be moving forward...

revert wars have picked up. (no 3RR violations...)
talk on talk-page seems to be willing to give editing the article a try... I re-inforced this by starting a list of things wrong with the article... (having complaints on things wrong with the article would be a step forward... then I can begin to prod them to improve it...)... unless they choose to go back to the deletion talk. If they do, I have a new idea, get agreement to put the article on AfD, as the party that wants to keep is confident it would pass... of course I would get their approval first. :) Eagle talk 05:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brit milah

I do not understand why you have repeatly removed the section on Metzitzah in the article Brit milah. You may mistakely believe that User:Bloger added that section, but the edit history clearly shows that he added only a small part [3]. The material is well sourced. If you believe it to me a hoax, I can affirm that it is not. Please respond on the talk page of the article. Jon513 14:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]