User talk:Arcticocean

User talk:Anthony cfc/Header Questions on Mediation Stage 2 Hi Anthony. I had some questions about the Mediation Stage 2 of our mediation case. Well, maybe they're more of comments. I've reviewed my edits to the article in question, and I still stand by them. I'm generally more than willing to discuss, and I'm open to compromise, but I honestly have no idea what compromise I could possibly suggest in this case. Cyclod's complaints seem to center more around the article itself than the edits I've reverted. I consider the edits that were made to be really bad ones (redundant edits, repetitive statements that effectively say nothing at all, and information that doesn't belong in a timeline), so I'm at a bit of a loss. When I reverted I had tried to integrate what little I could find worth keeping. It is possible in Mediation Stage 2 for me to just request that you review the edits that I had reverted, and evaluate them yourself, independently? I trust your better judgement, so I'd be fine with whatever revision to them you see as appropriate. — George Saliba [talk] 02:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC) That's an interesting proposal, but generally I remain neutral in my edits. However, I'll run it past the other party, and perhaps we can set up a IRC conversation? In the meanwhile, I'll suspend the Mediation until an answer to your proposal has been found. Kind regards, anthony[cfc] 16:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Hi Anthony. It's true I believe the entire article needs an overhaul. I cannot start adding in any neutrality because it's reverted immediately. The edits that user Saliba reverted are just the start. Please see my breakdown for more details on lack of neutrality in the mediation stage 1. There will be repetitive statements, one for each day as it is a timeline. They do not say nothing, why else would they need adding. All of the information of a war belongs in a timeline. Why would it not. Isn’t the timeline a breakdown of the war day by day? I suggest what I said on the mediation page of breaking each day to "Israel did..." and "Hezbollah did..." and that be reviewed for neutrality and then use that to replace the war timeline. If every edit I place is reverted then there is little point of adding anything at all eg: To keep an unreliable POV from Hezbulloh in the article without explanation (as Saliba reverted it) cannot make an article neutral. Cyclod 09:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Closing MfD's as "delete" "Non-administrators generally should not close "delete" decisions even if they are unanimous. Only administrators have the ability to actually delete the target article, so they will have to re-check for a valid AfD in any case." Please don't do it. Daniel Bryant 04:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC) I second this. While assitance is welcome, these almost got filed without actually being acted pm, making the process more difficult. — xaosflux Talk 04:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC) "Non-administrators may only close decisions which are unambiguous "keep" decisions. Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." I also reverted this close. Certainly not unambiguous at the present time, and could do with some further input that your close restricted. As such, I have relisted it. Daniel Bryant 04:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC) And this one, and this one. Neither are unambiguous; one I've relisted, the other I've closed as "no consensus to redirect" rather than "redirect". Daniel Bryant 04:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Also, I'd appreciate it if you blatantly steal someone's idea for content of your userpage (This, and the code is a near-copy of my userpage content), you acknowledge it. I remember that this isn't the first time you've tried to imitate me - actually, it's about the fourth. Put frankly, I'm getting sick of it, and your general behaviour on Wikipedia is reaching RfC stages. Ral's comment is so, so applicable. Daniel Bryant 04:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Fair do's - acknowledged, reverted with apologies. anthony[cfc] 06:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC) "Userpage/Base" page marked for Speedy; header reverted; general user page design reverted. Again, apologies - this was incorrect of me. anthony[cfc] 06:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Your recent checkuser request This is regarding your post on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pens withdrawn. I have put the check-user codes. The check-user administrator who did the checkuser has mistakenly put all the users mentioned under my id. --- Sundaram7 08:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Not a problem; I've checked the RFCU subpage, and it all seems in order, but if it's not been relisted (I suspect is hasn't - there is no {{relisted}} template) then I'll do so now. Regards — anthony[cfc] 16:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC) No problema! Any time, Tony! :) Anyway, I see that it has already been mentioned to you, but please allow me to friendly suggest you to refrain from closing AfD debates as "delete". When I wasn't an admin, I remember I stayed clear from them like bad weed! ;) I also see that you're eagerly waiting for input at your editor review, so if you don't mind, I'll give you my modest input right here. I kindly suggest you to relax a little; you seem to be taking the career to the mop too seriously, and trust me, you shouldn't - no one should. First, it truly is no big deal; more often than not, it takes away the pleasure from editing and makes your stress-meter levels skyrocket. And second, the more you obsess with it, the more you get frustrated as time passes. My most humble advice to you: have fun editing! Wikipedia is not the most important thing in life; there's nothing bad in whistling while you work. You have a lot of enthusiasm, and that's great - as long as it doesn't get the best of you. Be thoughtful, enjoy what you do, and be kind and true to your peers. If you follow this simple code, you'll see that after some time, the mop will be but the next logical step in your goal of helping our project. Have a great day! :) Phaedriel - 10:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Paytakaran Hi. Could you please help with resolution of the dispute on this article. The page move is not an issue, the real issue is that verifiable info is being removed from the article. Some people just don't want to accept that the region was part of various states, and not only Armenia, despite the article clearly saying so in the main text. There are so many relaible sources attesting to that, yet certain group of editors prevents the accurate info from being added to the article. Grandmaster 13:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)