User talk:FormerIP

Archives: 2009 2010 2011 2012

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, --WGFinley (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

ITN/C - January 3

	The Yakov Smirnoff award for ITN/C headers
	In ru:wikipedia section header laughs at you! LukeSurl t c 23:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC

Talk:Jerusalem/Mock RfC was also an unsuitable name so I have moved it to User:FormerIP/sandbox. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hebephilia article

Hello, FormerIP. Do you mind weighing in on this discussion to better explain a revert you made. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one

Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion you were involved in.

Hi, FormerIP.
FYI, there has been a report at AN/I regarding a discussion you were in: ANI#User:Jokestress at Talk:Hebephilia
— James Cantor (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now, sorry, but I'll comment tomorrow if the discussion is still ongoing. Cheers. Formerip (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Hey, FormerIP. I'm alerting you of this case, which now goes by a different name, in case you aren't aware of it. Why you weren't contacted about the case has also been queried. Flyer22 (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Crime victims and perpetrators

Hi, FormerIP. Per our previous discussions here and here, I was wondering if you might take a look at another proposal I've posted on my talk page and offer any comments or suggestions: User talk:Location#Crime victims and perpetrators. I thought it might be helpful to get some feedback from someone I've worked with previously before going "live" with it. Thanks! Location (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two question

Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could place the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent issue related to the Flag of Western Sahara

Hello,

Recently, a major change was made on the article Flag of Western Sahara, by merging it with Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic .

Since you participated to the RfC discussion on Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara, you might be interested by a related discussion on ANI or, at least, you might be interested in participating to the recently launched discussion on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Microsoft Office 2013".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! Death of Mido Macia The article you nominated for the front page section In The News will almost certainly not be posted there, but there is support for you nominating this for Did You Know. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Jerusalem RfC remarks Hi FormerIP. I noticed the exchange between you and Tariqabjotu yesterday, and I thought I ought to leave a comment here about it. Although I doubt you meant anything bad by it, I think Tariqabjotu was right to bring up[1] your mention of "stalling tactics"[2]. This is another one of those situations where labelling things can result in misunderstandings - what seems like stalling to one person can seem like honest debate to another. It's probably best not to use these kinds of words in the discussion, as people are likely to interpret them in ways that you didn't intend. If, on the other hand, you are worried about conduct issues in the discussion, it would be better to bring them up on my talk page or to email me about them. That will allow the discussion to progress without editors becoming distracted by conduct issues. I hope this makes sense, but please do ask if you have any questions about it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Coat of arms of Western Sahara/SADR Hello, There's a discussion you might be interested in at Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic#Move?. Regards, --Omar-toons (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for March 14 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Julian Cope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gwent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Six Nation - thanks I thought this overview you did was good and much-needed.--A bit iffy (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC) RSN As a regular contributor to RSN, whose opinions I respect, but don't always agree with, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Colombo.2C_Rose.2C_Fight_Back_Legal_Abuse:_How_to_Protect_Yourself_From_Your_Own_Attorney. At this point, one uninvolved person has commented, but I prefer to have more than one uninvolved person comment under the circumstances, so as to get a clear consensus one way or the other. Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC) AFD - Legal abuse Thanks for your comment at RSN related to the sole source for this article. I've gone ahead and filed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legal_abuse. Fladrif (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Re. Margaret Thatcher ITN You spoke in favour of including Margaret Thatcher's death on ITN, but that you were "indifferent" to the nomination itself. Is this because you found the nomination to be of noticeably poor quality? Or were you referring to the brevity of the blurb itself? If both, would you mind explaining where I went wrong so I can post a better ITN candidate in the future? Thanks. Kurtis (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC) I was just making a jokey comment, safe in the knowledge that the nomination was a shoo-in. There's nothing wrong with the nomination. Formerip (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Oh! OK, just making sure. =) Kurtis (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Capital OED OED is behind a paywall and I am curious. How does OED define "capital"? tnx --Ravpapa (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC) "The chief town or city of a country". This my own dead tree desktop version. I think it also shows the pitfalls of going off a dictionary definition, because they are not always very good. By that definition, California must be a country, because it has a capital. Formerip (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC) ... and that Los Angeles, and not Sacramento, would be its capital. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Indeed. I guess a matter for debate would be the meaning of "chief". Does it mean "biggest", "most politically powerful" or just the place where the chief hangs out? To complicate it further, Google maps tells me there are three towns in the US that are actually called Chief...Formerip (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC) YMMV Thanks for the laugh! They confuse me too, but I'm pretty sure it's "yet more monotonous verbiage". Writegeist (talk) Jerusalem RfC step three comments Hi FormerIP. This is just a reminder not to let yourself get worked up about comments made in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. I can understand why you wrote this comment, but comments like this that focus on the contributor are really not going to solve anything, and in fact will usually only serve to escalate matters. You're welcome to vent all you want, but only if you do it to me, in private, by email. :) I'd prefer to keep all commenting on contributors off the RfC discussion page. Even if it's not a vent, feel free to email me with any conduct issue you notice on the discussion page, however small, and I will take a look at it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)