User talk:Xavexgoem

Right to Resist

Thanks for your help. This Doc guy apparently really has something against me. He said about me, "looking long and hard at this user's contributions, I find it hard to assume other than a deliberate attempt to provoke drama. In a more rounded user's own space, I'd allow more latitude." It's scary to think I have an enemy. Anyway, he's trying to delete it again. Any more help would be appreciated. --MQDuck (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted rather quickly. I'm sure he has his reasons, and that's fine. Personally, I find it a violation of WP:AGF for this to have happened as quickly as it did and without any input. Particularly, I find it deplorable that the provocations with these userboxes has come from admins and not editors. C'est la vie. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just ignore Oto if I were you. I don't think you're going to get through to him the point that his arguments have no place here. Hopefully if he doesn't get any response he'll get the picture. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:07, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
- Alright. I'm getting a little hot headed as it is. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you can change your vote; it's standard to use the strikethru tags (i.e. <s>xxxx</s>) to make that explicit for the closing admin, ~~like so~~ -- Kendrick7^talk 19:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stagflation

Hi, I added a small example. Would be happy to have it refined or removed by you. Really happy to see how you are really increasing the quality of the page. My personal reasons for stagflation in the US are: ongoing sell of treasuries on the market by the Chinese, the trade deficit (consuming more than producing), increased shortage of imported commodities (e.g. Oil). Stagflation results because all of the tree can in fact not be controlled or regulated by the US (Sadly not even the trade deficit) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David stokar (talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mucoid plaque

Thanks for the explanation. Heelop comes by every few months or so trying to promote this stuff. Since he "forgot" to notify those of us he named in the mediation request, I didn't know what was going on. Cheers - Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First medcab attempt fails miserably :p. Nevertheless, if Heelop could provide an edit for all to look at (without it being summarily deleted; i.e., not on the article page), I'd be happy to help in any case. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Policy

Hi, thanks for your addressing of this issue. I wanted to ask your help on how we could establish policy with regards to POV pages of politicians and commentators. Would appreciate any help you can give. Thanks. Arnabdas (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I do agree about good faith and that is what I am assuming now. It looks like Blaxthos has deeply misunderstood my intent. I just wish he didnt engage in the formal warnings that he gave me and hope we can come to some consensus for this. Arnabdas (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDCAB

Would you mind if I jumped into the discussion at: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-21 Gilad Shalit as a co-mediator? I don't want to step on any toes. I just signed on to another mediation with a co-mediator but found it appears that one of the parties may not be open to mediation. I've done some other WP:DR but nothing else on WP:MEDCAB and want to get my feet wet on a team if possible rather than trying to take something alone later.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all :) Getting my feet wet too. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not helping as much as I'd hoped. Mostly just watching as I don't want to muck things up now that you've got them moving. You seem to be doing a lot of work. Good job so far!--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sassanid Empire Template

Hi, in response to your question, no, I have not specifically notified the other user, but I did post the Request for Negotiation on the template's page, as the template is what is being edited. I am happy to take advice, however, as I am more of a content adder and less of a process person on Wikipedia. (Which often puts me at a huge disadvangate!) If you think a RfC is the way to go, then let's do it. However, how can we assure that the Iranian users that dominate this article and its associated template won't flood the RfC, doing the same thing there that they do in the article itself? Regards, Larry Dunn (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is always the danger in RfC (and AfD, et al) to get a kind of editor swamp that skews the opinion one way or another. Thinking back, I think a third opinion might be a better option instead of RfC... actually, I'm now tending to think that 3O is almost always preferable to RfC, since the latter has a tendency for me-too voting, misconstruing the RfC process (which isn't about voting anyway) and calling it consensus.

That said, I'd be cautious of accusing Iranians of dominating an article as a cabal (there is no cabal). In particular, the folks over at project Iran have a good deal of context under their belts, and with it a good deal of knowledge. After all, Iranians are going to be the major contributing editors to Iran related articles (and who better qualified, generally speaking), but that doesn't mean they're trying to dominate it. ~~Despite your best intentions,~~ (striked; I edited this post to carbon before posting it, so there are some artifacts - I don't think I meant anything bad by it :p) This is always something to keep in mind: we are editors, not nationalities, ethnicities, etc. The problem is not with Iranians pushing a POV, it is a problem of POV pushers best qualified to push an Iranian POV. This probably comes across as super patronizing, but it is always best to keep the person behind the keyboard out of it, and consider only what they type.

That said, and that said... If this remains an issue, inform CreazySuit of the mediation or a 3O/RfC (which is part of the process for both). If you go medcab, just drop him a note; if you go 3O, drop him a note and then make as concise an argument as you can. Keep a cool head throughout the process. The point is to have consensus; you may never agree on what goes, but to reconcile differences is key.

Xavexgoem (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I don't think 3O will work as another editor joined him in reverting the edit to the description of the map. So I will post on Creasysuit's user page about the medcab.

On your discussion of the background of the editors, I do think it's important to keep the person behind the keyboard out of it -- until the person himself inserts it into the debate, which can be done by your actions as well as your words. These editors make nothing but edits to POV push in favor of Iranian subjects, and these are not edits to make things more accurate, but to make their preferred subjects look better. We are supposed to assume good faith -- but not forever.Larry Dunn (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Inch Nails live performances GAN

Thanks so much for taking the time to review NIN live performances. I've done my best to address most of your concerns, so let me know what you think. Also, since you've obviously read the article, and are probably more aware of the article's strengths and weaknesses than any other third party, do you think you could put in your 2 cents on a particular issue we're having with the article? The conversation can be found on the article's talk page (The section right above the one you made, titled "collapsible tables". There's a few issues that were brought up in that discussion, namely whether the tables should be collapsible, and whether the article should be split up or not. I would really appreciate it if you chimed in on that. But if you don't, thanks anyways for the review. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to gain your support. 19:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I've taken care of all of your concerns for the article. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. As for the debate about splitting the article up or rearranging it somehow, I think I'll leave it as is for now, and perhaps bring it to peer review of FAC and get some more opinions there. Thanks again. Drewcifer (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the hold period for the article's review is up, no? Is there anything else that you think should be done to secure the articles nomination? Drewcifer (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medcab 9/11 statement

I have no problem with it's removal. However I'm amazed that several editors got upset at being called "conservative". Calling use of the word "being abused and attacked" seems a little overboard. That was actually my second version and I chose it because it was only half the length of the first. The first version didn't use the word as I said "editors supporting the government version" instead. Is that phrase acceptable? Wayne (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind, it's best in these disputes to keep editors out of it when dealing with content issues, and focus only on the issues at hand, mentioning editors only where necessary. Particularly in high-tension controversial articles, where feelings often get hurt and the politics and context of any editor is hard to decipher, it's always wise to never generalize or assume.

You always gotta put yourself in other people's shoes: do editors support the government version, or do they know the government version to be true? And the same for editors with a gut feeling about other versions. I also know that 9/11 controversy draws a large crowd, and "conservative" is easily interpreted as "right-wing", when you can have Marxists, anarchists, libertarians, etc, involved. That's despite what you may have meant with "conservative".

So I feel the solution is to move away from the editors and focus on the issues. It's just too easy to create what appears to be an ad hominem attack, or a judgment on their nature. And it's too easy to get those wrong. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you do not see my edit as too much "ad hominem". If you choose to delete it, please keep the part "we should first reach agreement..." etc.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. No trout or organic carrot (which is what my local wholefood store threatens to beat shoplifters with) will come to any harm over your head :) I fully understand and agree with the reasons for redrafting the statement. Other issues will not be solved overnight. It is better to deal with one thing at a time where possible. ireneshusband (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medcab 9/11

A subject that continually comes up is lack of reliable sources for various conspiracy theories. We really need a question addressing this.
For example, this paper[1] was submitted for peer review but rejected not because it had faults but because (according to the rejection statement) it was outside the purview of peer reviewed physics and engineering publications. It was undeniable that it was within the purview so it's rejection has to be based on a reluctance to peer review anything supporting conspiracy theories. Wayne (talk) 09:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Removed question 7 from medcab

Fine with me! You're the boss... And I'm very curious what you'll do with it, but that can wait!  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re Socking: I noticed the question mark. Yes, it is a good faith sock.
What would happen when Vanja2 would edit under her account (with her typing), but when her and me would still work together discussing edits? It would still be my influence, unknown to wikipedians, but then no wikipedia guideline or custom would be violated. Is that what people would prefer? The best thing on wikipedia is WP:HONESTY, right? Can you please help me find a solution? RxS wants me to report it to ANI, I'm not sure how to proceed. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange question: Are there any diffs you can pull up of you or others being uncivil, and either wish to apologize for or want an apology from? This is where I've been heading... Xavexgoem (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already apoligized for some incivilty, and so have others. For me the past is past, and I no longer resent that. If others, in the present, are still feeling hurt by incivilty in the past, that is the present also, and I think it is a good idea of yours to address that. So I'm happy to talk about any diff, I like the idea, but I choose not to select any myself. By the way, I've lost the ANI/trolling by Ireneshusband section. Do you know where it is archived? It was there two weeks ago. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this: version

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For patiently explaining once again to the legion of single-purpose accounts and promoters of WP:TRUTH that Wikipedia is, in the end, not their soapbox. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw hell! You've created a rift between my conscience and my ego!
I'm keeping it. Not because I agree, but because it's my first barnstar :-p
Xavexgoem (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rorschach Inkblots

I think if it's the case that originals are being shown, it shouldn't be hard to reach consensus for some editor to take a piece of paper, blot some ink on it, fold it, then scan it. If that's not the case... I just don't think you can censor all symmetrical ink blots.

I agree, it should not be hard to reach consensus for a non-original inkblot. I feel I have my shortcomings when communication this issue. In trying to be unbiased in presenting the case by avoiding a possible solution, I actually made it harder for myself. At first I thougth the solution came up when somebody pointed out the compromise on having drawings instead of photos in the list of sex positions. But in looking at the talk history I found it had been proposed before.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archives