User talk:Fasten

Reply policy: Messages are replied on this page if no [[User_talk:Foobar#Header|Reply]] link is given at the end of a message. (see Talk Page Etiquette)

Archives

What you do in your User space is generally a matter for the individual user, but please don't redirect pre-existing articles from the main article space to versions you have created in your user space. Anilocra 12:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't even notice the mistake because I accidently linked to the pre-existing page. --Fasten 14:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I notice that you are creating a dictionary project in your user space. This is probably outside the intended uses of user pages; Wikipedia is not a dictionary; we already have a dictionary project, see http://en.wiktionary.org/ -- Karada 10:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll be continuing the pages on http://conlang.wikicities.com/wiki/Pi:Language in the intermediate future and put up a link to forward to that wiki. --Fasten 12:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Cohousing

I notice you added "internet cafes" to the list of cohousing facilities. I've never heard of a community with such a thing (mine has wireless access and coffee in the common house, but not in a "cafe" format). Is this a real thing? I'm inclined to remove it. Comments? [this is from the talk page--please feel free to comment there! Regards, rodii 16:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC) ]

"What else constitutes an Internet cafe? Waitresses?"

I would say... this doesn't really seem like a cafe in any sense to me. We have a dining room, there's wireless, but the two things don't have any relationship in our vision at least. Calling it an internet cafe evokes something quite different to me, and using it here seems idiosyncratic. rodii

PM transcript

How to revert (slightly erroneous):

[19:08] <DoctorateMan> What you want to do is this: [19:08] <DoctorateMan> go to the page's history [19:08] <DoctorateMan> select the last version from before the vandalism happened [19:08] <DoctorateMan> (by clicking on its date/timestamp) [19:09] <DoctorateMan> then, don't make any changes, but click edit [19:09] <DoctorateMan> the screen will point out that you are editing an out-of-date version [19:09] <DoctorateMan> which is true, because you want to restore the old, pre-vandal version [19:09] <DoctorateMan> then just click save [19:09] <DoctorateMan> put "revert vandalism" in the edit summary

- Nat Krause 11:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Quorn

I hope I've answered your question regarding RNA toxicity at talk:quorn. Does this satisfy your concern? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV tag you added to Quorn is still on that article, and you've not replied to my posts either on its talk page or here. Do you still beleive there is an NPOV issue with the article? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza!

Welcome, Fasten, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. Redwolf24 runs the spam to keep members up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of FireFox, Flcelloguy, Titoxd, and Karmafist. The next set of elections will be in February, and I would be glad to see you vote, or even consider running for a position.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 20:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2 01 2006 Kent Hovind

I apologize if you took offense to what I said. I have a bad habit of not composing messages properly at times. It was meant to be a (sarcastic) observation of the mediation process in general. The debate was not between Jason Gastrich and myself in regards to this article. Jason and I do have issues that he has taken outside of WikiPedia, but that is being handled at this time. The article itself has cooled down and has not been altered by either participant reported to the Cabal for several days. You did no mediation ^[1] in this case. You excused it with no other resolution than, "This is indeed the same case" as Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_12_2005_Mark_K._Bilbo. It was pointed out to you, by myself and another WikiPedian that these are not the same cases. They are 2 different articles with 2 different subjects. That the contributing (and debating) editors for both articles in question are the same persons does not warrant your dismisall. In the Bilbo case, Jason was trying to push his POV by including defaming statements and quotations from UseNet which aren't allowed in WikiPedia. In the Hovind article, he was deleting verifiable critiques of his personal hero. Bonaparte has in fact "come through" and issued a statement regarding the Bilbo article. He has vindicated himself in my eyes. Icj tlc 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

An Esperanzial note

As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

You beat me with my own arguments!

here

<grin> I love it when that happens! Kim Bruning 19:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Another Esperanzial note...

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Celestianpower ^háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

Asking

It's been taken, but next time, please ask beforehand. Karmafist 12:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem, thanks for being pro-active over there. It's become quite a mess. Karmafist 12:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Abramoff mediation case

I believe it to be resolved. haz _(user talk)^e 12:47, 21 February 2006

Shiloh Shepherd Dog Mediation

Thanks for checking back about that -- I meant to strike it out last night when I wandered by. The case was taken to ArbCom, so no longer requires mediation. Thanks anyways! .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy mediation case

Hi! I filled the new template as asked, but the case was resolved on 2/12/06 by mutual accord. Sean and I are still bumping heads sometimes but I believe mediation will not be needed anymore Renmiri 19:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity Mediation Request

Thanks for your input regarding Wikiversity and the advice regarding general participation. user:lazyquasar

Mediation: Electric Universe Concept

Indeed yes, the case is still in need of mediation. --Iantresman 15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

cabal case wrt user:netoholic

hi, wondering what status is. ... aa:talk 23:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

IPTV

Thank you for putting the spam tag on the IPTV page. Hopefully that will help the situation. For some reason, that topic is attracting tons of commercial attention, with lots of vendors putting up company links etc. Andrwsc 17:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think the IBS thing is beyond my capabilities. Regionalsimp

Meditation

Ok, I updated my answer. --Khoikhoi 15:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Status change on the irritable bowel syndrome

Thank you for working with the Mediation Cabal. There was a request for mediation on the Irritable Bowel Syndrome article. It was put up by Cameronian, assigned to another, and now is listed as withdrawn. Do you know who put in the request to withdraw the mediation request on that article? Kd4ttc 03:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Can you outline how your mediation for Talk:Persian people is going to work? As of right now most of my concerns ragarding the factualy accuracy of the article have been ignored. Aucaman^Talk 07:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What kind of mediation is this?!

I see that Rohirok was assigned to mediate the Natasha Demkina case. And I also just saw that he posted this note to one guy who wants to include references that I have been arguing violate Wiki guidelines regarding reputable sources.

"I've been assigned the Demkina mediation case. I will do my best to work toward a NPOV in the article, and I agree that the article ought to include a description of Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Josephson's problems with the CSICOP researchers' scientific methodology. I must disclose that I am skeptical of the paranormal, a former subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer, and a former intern at CSICOP's international headquarters, though I have never met Skolnick. That said, I don't think the article should at all push CSICOP's agenda. A reader of the article should not get the impression that the article itself is making a case for or against Demkina's purported paranormal abilities.

I can assign another mediator to the case, if you wish. Rohirok 03:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What kind of mediator starts off mediation by writing one side of the dispute saying that he agrees with them? Rohirok did not write me with the same offer; I would take it. That's why I'm writing you. I want a different mediator assigned -- not one that comes to the mediation table already agreeing with one side.

Rohirok appears to have the same point of view as Dreadlocke and his supporters, that the Natasha Demkina article should give equal weight to the views of Natasha's supporters, even if it means citing non-reputable sources, such as the personal web sites of kooks who have never published anything related to the field in peer-reviewed science journals. I would like a mediator who comes to the table respecting Wiki editing guidelines and policies. Thank you.

Askolnick 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may add another point: I only found out a couple hours ago that Rohirok was assigned to be mediator. He's never informed me, either privately or on the Natsha Demkina Discussion page. But as you can see from his and Dreadlocke's personal Talk pages, they have been exchanging greetings and complements now for several days. Is this the kind of mediation that is practiced in Wikipedia? I think this is outrageous.

And please take a look at what Rohirok has already argued on the Natasha Demkina talk page. He entered the discussion in support of using non-reputable personal web sites (without identifying himself as having been assigned to be mediator!): "It is fine to reference sources that are considered disreputable if they document the fact that certain claims are being made," he wrote. That is exactly the claim that I am disputing and he comes into the forum and starts off with his verdict. Only, I didn't have a clue that it was a verdict. I had no idea he was the assigned moderator. So now that he's issued his verdict, when does the trial start? I'm feeling like Alice in Wikiland.

I don't think Rohirok should ever again be assigned to moderate any dispute between editors. Askolnick 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Fasten. This is my first mediation case. I am still learning, and believe that I will make a good mediator. As suggested, I will read closely the suggestions for moderators. If the Cabal finds that they would like to assign another mediator to this particular case, I will accept that decision gladly. However, I hope that you would consider me for other cases. Rohirok 16:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's mediator, not moderator. The Mediation Cabal doesn't (formally) exist so there is nobody with the authority to assign another mediator, except, maybe, the coordinator. Your clients may, of course, decide that they want another mediator. In that case you can assign somebody else yourself. --Fasten ^talk|med 17:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This was my mediation request, and I think Rohirok will make a fine mediator; he described both sides of his views to me - that he had been previously involved with CSICOP and yet saw the fairness of including Professor Josephson's website. Inclusion of that website is agreed upon by everyone except for Mr. Skolnick who has a distinct and unique perspective due to the fact that he is one of the key contributors to the very same CSICOP articles and investigations that are being critiqued by the very website he disputes inclusion of. At this point, I do not believe Mr. Skolnick is arguing in good faith nor has any intention of coming to a consensus with the other disputants, so I think this will end up in the hands of the Mediation and Arbitration committees. The Mediation Cabal was the first step in that direction. Dreadlocke 19:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course you think Rohirok will make a fine mediator. We can see that from the communications you two had days before he let anyone else know that he was assigned to be mediator. And we can see how he assured you not to worry, that he was on your side. Of course you think Rohirok will make a fine mediator. Fasten just got done pointing out the many errors Rohirok made in his attempt to edit the article instead of mediating. As you always do, you simply ignore contrary facts in pursuit of your personal agenda. And once again, you resort to a bald faced lie. The citation of Brian Josephson's disreputable, self-published personal web page is NOT agreed upon by everyone else. You know damn well that some editors agree with me. But as you always do, you simply ignore contrary evidence in pursuit of your personal agenda. Here's a comment from one editor: "As a mainly uninvolved observer, it looks to me like Mr. Skolnick is leading a 1 man defense against whitewashing, POV edits, and use of unreliable sources. JoshuaZ 22:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)" As long as you keep posting such lies, Dreadlocke, I am going to keep exposing them for what they are. Askolnick 18:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I accept your evaluation, Fasten. I have approached this mediation incorrectly. I will chalk this one up as a learning experience. Often, you learn most when you fail. I ask that another person be assigned as mediator. I believe that someone without a relationship to the skeptical or paranormal fields will be best for this, though a scientific background will be a great help. Someone with a very thick skin is also necessary. This is a tough case, with a quite extensive discussion history and well-entrenched sides. Rohirok 22:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A mediator does not need a thick skin if he or she actually mediates instead of pursuing his or her own agenda -- as you did, Rohirok. You tried to use your position as mediator to edit the article to suit your own personal views. Anyone who tries that again is going to need a really thick skin. Hopefully the next mediator to take this on won't need a thick skin. But since you're choosing the next mediator, I'm not optimistic. You didn't act with fairness as a mediator, I doubt you will be fair in choosing a replacement. Askolnick 18:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, you placed the 'helpme' template on a page, what kind of help do you need? The template is actually meant for user talk pages, which is why I'm replying here, I hope you don't mind! --JoanneB 12:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

We have users that need help and these are frequently unexperienced users in need of help so the clientele is exactly what {{helpme}} is meant for. The difference is that the help required is informal mediation. --Fasten 12:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fasten! As explained at the Wikipedia:Newcomers help page, the instructions for using {{helpme}} are: "Place {{helpme}} on your talkpage and help will visit you ASAP!".

When you do use it, we are notified in an IRC channel, then we visit the person who needs help (and the page is added to category that people check). This is quite different from what you want to achieve at Mediation cabal. If you like, you can join us online and see for yourself, we would love to meet you. You can just click here. --Commander Keane 12:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Persian people

Hello there,

First of all thank you for trying to sort things out, I appreciate it very much.

I would like to assume good faith, however you were quick to find the link ('evidence' to my personal attack) but everything else you posted, you only put 'accusation' and asked US to provide evidence which have been constantly posted in the last week.

Why is this? could you not bother to put the hundreds of incidents reported in there (Mediation page)? I suggest you start reading up on them, because we are waaay tooo busy defending the articles. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aucaman and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Aucaman_and_User:Heja_helweda_and_User:Diyako for a few.

I also suggest read up on Wikipedia:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board and especially here

Thanks again for your help, --Kash 23:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman tried to remove all your contribution to 'archive', but I reverted it --Kash 11:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested update

I have been asked by the requesters of the Persian people mediation to advocate for them. I have one question for you. That question is simply: Is it correct that cabal mediation was requested, and that Aucaman declined to participate by deleting the talk page request for mediation?

I am not ready to request arbitration unless mediation has failed. Robert McClenon 12:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see also my comment on User_talk:NicholasTurnbull#Persian_people.

The claim that Aucaman has moved the mediation case to the archive is apparently correct. He did this, however, with a general refactoring of the talk page and not specifically to remove the mediation case. He has also did not make any comments that were plainly rejecting the mediation case. --Fasten ^talk/med 13:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Words of guidance to Cameronian

Thank you for giving words of guidance to Cameronian on his involvement in mediating on Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Kd4ttc 23:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to explain why I have decided to leave Wikipedia.

It was down to User:Kd4ttc.

I did not believe that you had any right what so ever to tell me that my advocacy on the IBS article was poor. The case had barely started when Kd4ttc started making my life hell, complaining about one word errors such as when I had said I was a member of the mediation committee when I actually meant the advocacy committee (OK, there is a difference, but this does not invalidate my comments - that I had merely said that I would back Sarastro, I had not or claimed to have made any "official" decision, which clearly is what an advocate is supposed to do. I advised Sarastro to recreate her edits as the 3RR rule had been broken). Then the user made some accusations towards me such as that I was a sock puppet. I feel it is a shame that the actions I was taking to help this site have been interpreted in another way.

If you have anything to say, please post it on my old talk page.

Cameronian 19:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Etiquette

User_talk:Rohirok#Please_Do_Not_Delete_the_Writing_of_Others_-_That.27s_Censorship

Incomplete RfM

I was trying to request mediation for the Persian people case. Please disregard the request, since it is already in mediation. Robert McClenon 12:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian people

What do you have to say/do about all these people removing the dispute tag? Aucaman^Talk 00:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The article had the dispute tag for weeks if I remember correctly, and mainly because of user Aucaman, I think its a bit unfair as so much hard work has gone in to it and only one user is really challenging the whole thing. --Kash 00:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As you can see I cannot even have a private discussion with another user without having someone comment on it. It is somehow "unfair" of me to even complain about the fact that there is a dispute in place but people are taking off the dispute tag without any discussion or comments in the talk page. Aucaman^Talk 00:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Computer science

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Computer science! Hopefully you'll find it both a worthwhile place to contribute your expertise, and a good place to learn from the expertise of other project members. Looking forward to collaborating with you in the future. --Allan McInnes (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Roads

I'm not willing to mediate in other cases due to the scale of the problem we're facing at U.S. Roads. Also, it would be helpful if someone was assigned soon because the problem only grows each day. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Not accepting a mediation case and asking for a quick assignment are in opposition: The more people submit cases without accepting cases the slower the service will get. Your waiting position is currently 7 and it would be 3 if you would offer mediation. --Fasten 11:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Tyrone Power Mediation

Sorry if there was any confusion regarding the mediation - I fully understood that the cabal was an informal process, with no power, it was User:Rossrs who made the statement "I am outraged that editors have made substantial edits to the article under discussion before the mediation process has been completed", not me. --JereKrischel 16:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I seem to have misread that. --Fasten 17:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case: Joe Scarborough

Hello. I have declined to mediate in this case due to a lack of enough background information. Please assign this case to another mediator, as I don't know the proccedure to do it. By the same token, and to be fair, please delete my request for Mediation on the History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute article, or indicate me the procedure I should follow to delete the request. Thank you. talk:Andres C.

I will take care of both. --Fasten 15:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case: Chinook Wind

Thank you for mediating the Chinook Wind case to a resolution that, hopefully, satisfied all involved. Also, I accepted the mediation of a dispute involving the New Zealand article. Unfortunately, my initial attempts have not been met with any response, and my experience with the Chinook Wind article has soured me on the informal mediation process. Is it possible to have it assigned to another user? Elpoca 19:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can do that yourself. Please follow the guidelines on the WP:MEDCAB page. You can also step down without assigning a new mediator and write "needs new mediator" next to the article in the list of cases.

Mediation case: Persian people

Hi Fasten, you may have noticed I made a compromise suggestion for a wording at Persian people yesterday. My intention was for it to be step in the direction of your mediating suggestions ([1]), but apparently ManiF and Zmmz found it counterproductive, for reasons I can't quite understand. I hope I haven't been detrimental to your mediation efforts in doing that. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)