User talk:Keitei/Archive3

And when you wake up, everything is gonna be fine...

This is not a current version of my talk page.
See the current version if you would like to discuss.

February 19 - July 1
July 2 - September 20

THANK YOU

You've helped me greatly! NgrzLuvFriedChikn 22:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Editors are cautioned that there may be exceptions to Wikipedia Guidelines and Style Guides due to unusual circumstances such as an important current event. Decisions need to be based on utility of the article to readers, not to literal compliance with Wikipedia rules. A diverse mix of blogs is recommended, but the extent and selection of specific blogs is a matter of content to be determined by the editors of the article. Any user, particularly Tasc, who engages in edit warring with respect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict may be banned from the article for an appropriate period. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 03:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiiii!

You know you want to respond on my talk page! --CableModem 21:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, sorry, but I didn't! 1000th edit is too significant! Too special! :D --Keitei (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice vote

I replied... - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the reply. :] --Keitei (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCookie

Your comments in opposition to CrazyRussian's RFA were well thought out, and present a high example for others to follow. Have a cookie - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 06:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Books portal

What kind of assistance would you like? I can pitch in a little...Her Pegship 21:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. :] --Keitei (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting afd discussions

Hi, thanks for relisting some discussions that really hadn't reached concensus. However, when relisting the discussions, please also edit the log page for the original date and comment out the discussions so they won't get transcluded into several pages (I did it for the 2 articles you relisted from October 2 here). This helps Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old to stay updated and helps others who close the discussions. Thanks. - Bobet 20:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was actually wondering if I should have done that while I was doing it, but couldn't find any instructions or such anywhere. But now I know! Cheers. --Keitei (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BARNSTARZOMG

		The Original Barnstar
		for being nice on IRC and a good bridge between Wikia and Wikimedia p.s YOU ARE TEH ROXOR IMO TehKewl1 10:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

In the future, when you merge pages, could you remove the banner notices from those re-direct pages and make sure they are on the page they have been merged into. This will make it easier for the editors of various WikiProjects. Thanks, Cbrown1023 23:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Sorry for the trouble. --Keitei (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review request for mediator CP\M

After the two failed mediation attempts and a (now final) arbitration, moderator CP\M requests a review of his activities, especially pertaining to the mediation of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon case. His request has been posted on the MedCab Coordination Desk, as stated above, and I have added relevant links for coordinators who would like to review ArbCom decisions. Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English prefixes

FYI: I added wiktionary:Transwiki:List of English prefixes to wiktionary:Wiktionary:Transwiki log. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 19 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Color change in leaves, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Andrew Levine 19:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Risks of Classical Ballet

Thanks so much for your understanding, Keitei. I am a ballet dancer myself, and I admit I've had my share of body-related troubles as a result, but they were all due to me working incorrectly. Do you think it would be possible to rephrase some of the sentences -- such as:

"many ballet movements, such as turning out the hips and rising on the toes, go beyond the natural range of human movement and can place unhealthy stress on the body when not performed correctly"
"many believe that the ideal dancer must be excessively thin" (thank goodness they've stopped with that nonsense, or I'd never make it!)
"misunderstanding teachers and directors will sometimes encourage weight loss"
"Professional ballet dancers may have difficulty finding job security with a well-paying job"
"Even dancers using the best foresight and care may develop permanent body issues as a result of ballet"

Do you think we can move the description of anorexia nervosa away from the first paragraph, and perhaps change the heading of "Road to Injury" to something more encyclopedic-sounding? The article, although rich in content, reads a little like an essay, with a lot of "therefores" and POV-ness. I'd love to help -- would you like me to go ahead and make the edits I think necessary, so you can see what I'm thinking? If this would be helpful, just let me know. Thanks! Emmegan 23:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds wonderful! I've been stuck trying to make it less of an essay, so any help would be very much appreciated. Go ahead and make all the changes you like. :]

Perhaps a section on discontinued practices which put dancers at risk would be of interest, as I'm sure there have been reforms to improve the conditions and decrease injuries. Thanks so much for your help! --Keitei (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Keitei -- I've just made a big rewrite of the Risks of Classical Ballet article. I'd love it if you would like to take a look and give me feedback. I will also putz around and look for outside articles on the discontinued practices of ballet. Certainly the age at which dancers go on pointe -- Maria Tallchief went on at three, and certainly that doesn't happen any more! -- has changed, so I'll try to get some informnation on that. Thanks, Emmegan 16:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

So the leaves were yours? Nice :) On to the main point: could I ask you to comment on that? I think you handled my mediation very well, and I'd appreciate your commentary on this. Am I wrong?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request on Talk:Alexander the Great

Keitei, I'd be glad to accept you as a mediator in this case. Please note that I just asked Wissahickon Creek to recuse himself; I'm glad to have him participate in the ongoing discussion, I just don't think he should do so as a mediator.

My goal in this mediation is to have someone unbiased look at the debate and evaluate whether there's an NPOV problem here. I know that this dispute will seem trivial, since it only concerns whether a category should be placed in the article, rather than the content of the article itself, but the issues at stake here could affect a wide range of articles. Thanks for taking it on. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Keitei :) I just want to tell you that I don't have an opinion on the matter too, I just want an NPOV formulation to be found, and when I took the decision for me that version was the most NPOV and neutral formulation. Now, we as mediators should also take into account the opinion made by Aldux and Co. which differs very much from the POV opinion of Akhilleus and Haiduc. Now, we as mediators should find an NPOV solution, what's your next step? what do you say?--Wissahickon Creek ^talk 11:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By deciding which version is NPOV you are declaring an opinion. Mediators lead discussions, they don't decide anything. --Keitei (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That opinion was regarded as the best one. I just reiterate the large support for that version. I took it as agreed.Wissahickon Creek ^talk 21:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus cannot be decided in two days with a vote. It's your opinion that it is the most NPOV (whatever that is) and no compromise has been reached as of yet. Please don't force opinions on people. --Keitei (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Keitei, please look at the latest changes on the article. Be informed! --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 21:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...? --Keitei (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Keitei. I just made some comments in G.A. talk about other encyclopedias dealing with him. Also, Takidis added some scholars. I think those edits are essential. Would it be redundant to repeat them in the mediation page? How does this work? •NikoSilver• 22:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At present the mediation page seems to be dealing with the mediation process and the talk page with the actual mediation. However, you can use it in any way you like if it'd be helpful. There isn't any need to repeat information (unless you see a need), and I don't think it gets nearly the traffic the Talk:Alexander the Great page does, but it's there for you, so use it as you please. --Keitei (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am obviously interested in the debate, but confident that you are watching both talks and filtering what must or must not be taken into account. That's the first mediation I happen to experience. I'll dig in to it more, as it seems an interesting part of WP. Nice job so far. •NikoSilver• 22:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration and Mediation and a proclamation of indignation!

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-06 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is just what you've always wanted, yet another case about the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict!

Just in case you're bored, or think "Hey, you know, this seems rather familiar..." there's a darn good reason:

Good luck. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 21:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you. I've been spending lots of time reading Wikipedia pages. I have another question. I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to borrow codes from this user, User:Anonymous anonymous. According to her page she has "retired". How can I contact her? Can you please reply at my page? Thank you. Half-Blood Auror 23:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Half-Blood Auror 00:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Award of a Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded for services as Coordinator of the (possibly nonexistant) Mediation Cabal. Awarded by Addhoc

RFA Thanks

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm aware...

i realized that SB was not themself saying that, but a quote on transcendentalism is hardly fitting... especially one that could be construed as incindiery. that's like quoting hell-damning phrases from Paul to make a point about equal views on Homosexuality. "Little minds" is not nice. neways, i understood Sean's criticisms and responded to the constructive views presented. -Zappernapper ^Babel_stalk 22:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Self-Reliance: This philosophy is exemplified in the quote: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

A quotation which exemplifies a philosophy refers to the philosophy and is never construed as incendiary. Also, the interpretation found at bartleby says nothing insulting, which I'd take to mean that even without the context of the essay, it's not an insult. Whether the quotation was applied with the same context as the essay is another matter (of little importance), the point was that consistency is the least of your worries: fix the content, then nitpick it to hell. --Keitei (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]