User talk:Leifern

See also:

• Archives: Oct 15, 2004 - January 28, 2006
• Archives: January through mid April, 2005

Mediation

Will you seek mediation regarding your dispute with User:Midgley? Steve block talk 10:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't clear what we would mediate about. Midgley launched a series of personal attacks against me throughout Wikipedia; I documented these attacks and defended myself against them. You, rather fantastically, conclude that both sides are equally wrong/right and encourage mediation. I have to give this some thought, to be honest. If neither I nor anyone else has the right to defend himself/herself against personal attacks such as those perpetrated by Midgley, we have a serious problem. --Leifern 14:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You are engaged in a dispute with User:Midgley, and mediation is one form of dispute resolution. Will you therefore seek mediation? Steve block talk 16:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Steve, please refer to the above response. I am giving this some thought, as I indicated. For the record, I reject the premise that this is about a dispute. I have, for the time being, disengaged from the articles we're disagreeing about; if Midgley doesn't make any more personal attacks, the page in question will fall into disuse. --Leifern 17:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you come to a decision as to whether to seek mediation or not? Steve block talk 12:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I just don't understand what we're supposed to mediate about? Please enlighten me: what have I done that I should stop doing so that Midgley will stop his personal attacks on me, not to mention his recent interest in other articles I've edited about Norway. At this point, I'm not even sure what we're disagreeing about - I've left Anti-vaccinationist to its inevitable fate when some of the alleged "anti-vaccinationists" call the office. --Leifern 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• If you believe that User:Midgley is making personal attacks against you, and that you are unclear what you are disagreeing about, that is reason enough to seek mediation. It is quite clear there is a dispute between you two. Will you seek mediation? User:Midgley has indicated he will. Steve block talk 07:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have documented that Midgley has made numerous personal attacks against me. There are no current personal attacks, because I have stayed away from articles that we disagree about. So, there is no current dispute. I am open to mediation, but I am trying to understand what we are mediating about. --Leifern 10:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The above exchange is one of the clearest examples of direct bullying I have seen on Wikipedia yet. Here we have Leifern being blamed for the unusual behaviour and editing practices of User:Midgley aka according to his user page as Dr Adrian Midgley, Exeter GP. It is not Leifern's obligation to regulate Wikipedia. Regrettably, however, there are a number of Admins who seem positively to think it is acceptable to let User:Midgley continue with this unusual behaviour and these practices unchecked.

Trying to bully someone into mediation over something that is caused by the unchecked behaviour of another user seems to defy common-sense - but then, this is Wikipedia.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 07:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC) 07:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This user's behaviour is disruptive. He was in the start of this row - where it is quite possible an even slightly emollient, or wise, or helpfully detailed intervention owuld have saved a lot of aggravation [1] and is still here trying to get more mileage out of his trolling. Have a look at his contributions to see what he has added that is in any way helpful to producing an encyclopaedia. The answer is not nothing, but it is barely perceptible among the other postings, rather a lot of which are disruptive. The issue of the username is bizarre. If you look at the earliest edits recorded, you'll see an attack on me. This does make me think that some of this is a continuation of anti-vaccinationist and anti-medical trolling in the rapid responses of the BMJ. Perhaps I should be flattered, but I'd prefer to get on with an encyclopaedia, and this user is not an asset to WP. Midgley 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but your behavior is at least as disruptive, and sanctimonious in addition. And it's interesting that you've taken to following me around lately, making edits on unrelated articles. --Leifern 01:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

We do seem to overlap in some areas, however I have not noticed you following me to most of the areas I edit in. Midgley 14:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked, I was the first to edit articles on Norwegian politics and the Battle of Springfield. I have absolutely no idea what else you're involved in; but your efforts are working - my inclination is to stay away from Wikipedia. Congratulations - by being an insufferable fool and jerk, you have pretty much driven me away. --Leifern 00:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

SWYMD? Midgley 13:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's been my observation that things will end up in the right place without my participation, though perhaps a bit later. Anti-vaccinationist will end up in the dustbin where it belongs; articles on thimerosal, vaccines, homeopathy, etc., will eventually become NPOV; all the arguments you think you've won will be overturned, and you'll either have to sign up for intellectual integrity or find a more receptive place for POV-pushing. But I'm tired of dealing with it all. --Leifern 16:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Det er etter de gode ord det gror, ikke etter småskårenhet og pirkeri. Det har ennå ikke flyttet verden et lusefjed." Johan Falkberget Williamborg 03:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Bullying

Leifern, do you believe my offer of mediation to be bullying in any way, shape or form? Steve block talk 21:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I actually think you have good intentions. --Leifern 00:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Commendable Response Re: Bullying

The above response by User:Leifern is commendable. I am more questioning with reason (ie. not presumption). Like him here, I was challenged to agree to mediation with User:Midgley when there was no dispute - see [[2]] - and when I and another were subject to personal attacks by User:Midgley - see [[3]]. Despite no dispute being identified, and my having said there was no dispute User:Midgley started an RfC over a new dispute which was not the subject of the request for mediation - see [[4]]. Accordingly, I find it odd that User:Leifern was asked three times to agree to mediation over a dispute with User:Midgley that also does not appear to have existed at the time the request was made. Those requests bear the implication an RfC (and more) might ensue if mediation were not agreed to.

A further similarity is that this arose after I assisted another editor User:Pansophia who complains of the same thing User:Leifern complains of which is that User:Midgley started following her around Wikipedia and doing battle with her on pages he would not normally have been involved with after she assisted me over User:Midgley's stalking me and impersonating me. See [[5]] and [[6]] - and see [User:Midgley]]'s contributions regarding the Rankism page User:Pansophia created here [[7]] and here [[8]]

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 23:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please Take A Look At This

Please see Some Evidence for Your Arbitration - found here [[9]] and Perhaps Sterner Action Than Last Time? - found here [[10]]

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 13:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

And please see now - [[11]]

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 13:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You have previously been advised strongly by an admin to either shut up or call an RFC. I suggest you either shut up or call an RFC. Midgley 00:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC) I do not think teh company you have been keeping - as shown in entries above here - is good company. Midgley 00:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this directed at me, or 86? --Leifern 00:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

‎"‎װיקיפּעדיע‎"‎ and ‎"‎װיקיביבליאָטעק‎‎"‎

• sholem-aleykhem Leifern! Beside ‎"‎װיקיפּעדיע‎"‎ ‎"‎װיקיביבליאָטעק‎‎"‎ stared today. I would be happy if you could help building the projects in Yiddish. a gut wokh Gangleri · Th · T 18:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine Addiction

Is it just me or have articles dealing with alternative medicines become way to bias against...well against reality I suppose. I guess a sad side effect of the increasing numbers of wikipedia editors is that articles on theories that the masses believe get presented as mainstream fact, and the opposition to these theories (doctors, scientists, and indeed anybody with common sense) gets presented as fringe beliefs. Anyways, I saw you were involved in the conflict over these articles and I am just recently adding them to my watchlist.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It has become a very polarized debate, but there is plenty of bad behavior on both sides. "Reality," when it comes to medical science, is more elusive the more you look into it. There will inevitably be articles on "alternative medicine" topics in Wikipedia, and my view is that they should be written factually and neutrally, their claims presented fairly, and objections to them equally fairly. Right now, there are shrill denunciations on both sides, and the result is trashy articles like Homeopathy and Anti-vaccinationist and lack of progress in other articles. Be very careful about accepting conventional theory on these issues, by the way. Medicine has evolved significantly over the last 100, 200, 300 years and this will likely accelerate - our descendants 100 years from now will likely look back at what is "medicine" today with horror and disbelief. --Leifern 10:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple of articles

Hey Leifern. There are a couple of articles being edited that you might be interested in. The first is Israeli settlement, which you have edited extensively in the past, and the second is New anti-Semitism. I'd really appreciate your thoughts on both of these. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's an interesting POV one: Palestine Mandate. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Order_of_St_Olav_collar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Order_of_St_Olav_collar.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:New community on the Golan .jpg

Your photo Image:New community on the Golan .jpg, which is described as "New community on the Golan Heights" is without doubt a photo of the Druze village of Majdal Shams. Would it be ok if I changed the description and the caption in the Golan Heights article?--128.139.226.37 14:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine. --Leifern 15:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC - Your Endorsement?

I would appreciate it if you would consider doing something very simple for me? You have done more than your fair share in the past so if you want to keep well out of this, I can understand but also I am also not asking for anything more than that you consider an endorsement at an RfC.

I would appreciate it if, after considering whether you are in a position to assess the facts, you could consider whether to please endorse my holding response to this RfC here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219#HOLDING_RESPONSE

I am going to have to get on with some proper work for a few a while but intend to be back to take matters further.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 10:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

When I start drafting my Response I will replace the Holding Response and it will become an Annex to the draft Response. Accordingly, you will cease to be an endorser of my draft Response unless you so choose to be once it is available to be read. I trust that is satisfactory and thank you for endorsing the Holding Response. It would clearly be inappropriate for me to keep any of the names of the endorsers once the draft Response starts.

Hopefully, the RfC protagonists will see the sense of what I say elsewhere regarding confirming the Statement of Case is complete.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 16:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Kjetil r as admin on commons

Hi! The norwegians have put foreward an admin request on commons, commons:Template:Administrators/Requests and votes/Kjetil r. It would be nice to have your vote! — John Erling Blad (no) 21:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD for Right- and Left- wing terrorism articles - have your say

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing terrorism and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism and have your say, if possible. Thanks.Xemoi 00:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

True Torah Jews

Hi, I posted a defense of the article True Torah Jews, I would like to ask you to be so kind and read it, and than rethink your position on deletion.

Bloger 02:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think on a vote its a good idea to edit other people's posts? I really think you made a mistake here. jbolden1517^Talk 12:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe I changed my own vote, which should be ok, no? --Leifern 15:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I left that intact. You actually had changed two other people's comments regarding their votes. That's what I was objecting too. jbolden1517^Talk 16:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Since you’re Jewish and is seems from your user page that you have extensive knowledge on Judaism why not be so kind and edit the article - without making major differences in content – so that a reader with only passing knowledge of Zionism and Judaism should be able to read an article and make sense of it.

Or didn’t I understand you’re point ?

On the second point, the full name of the group is “True Torah Jews against Zionism” but I figured it’s to long for a group name.

The only option was to change it to “Jews against Zionism” the problem with this is firstly it gets confused with “Jews not Zionists”(which is the Neturei Karta) in addition the main objective of the TTJ is not that there are Jews that are against Zionism but rather that there are “True Torah” Jews that are against Zionism.

Bloger 16:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:OE Rolvaag.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:OE Rolvaag.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fred-Chess 07:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Summer camp articles

Regardless of the nominator's purpose for nominating that slew of articles for deletion... "the cat is out of the bag." Now is the time to show that the claims are unsubstatitated by answering them instead of hiding behind what you appear to believe is an 'evil campaign' by the nominator; improving the articles so they pass per the various policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, providing citations and sources, removing unverifiable information, and demonstrating with evidence why these articles are encyclopedic and should stay.

Consider: if all of these articles had been nominated for deletion over a period of several months, with each nomination performed by a unique user isolated from all other nominating users, would you be running around screaming "bad faith and conspiracy", or would you be doing something along the lines of the above, which Viriditas has started with Camp Tawonga? -- saberwyn 12:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have opposed each of these AFD's, simply because "non-notable" is a very subjective term that is abused by deletionists who take their philosophy too far. The fact that someone on a rampage only puts their motivation in question, but the case for deletion is weak in either case. --Leifern 19:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

help?

Can you comment here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#recent_changes I am concerned that User:CrazyInSane and User:Codex Sinaiticus will not give up easily - and will not allow for any compromise whatsoever. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

New "Israeli apartheid" article

Hi Leifern: Vigorous editing and debate is taking place at Israeli apartheid (phrase). Please take a look at it and add your comments. Thanks a lot. IZAK 21:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hailing you at "List of Jewish history topics"

Greetings, Leifern! This is a heads-up about a reply I just posted on the Discussion page of the List of Jewish history topics, re: an issue you raised there back on 20 December 2005. As I don't know whether you're tracking that on your watchlist nowadays, I thought to hail you here (hoping this isn't a faux pas; if so, please pardon a rookie's overenthusiasm :-)
Deborahjay 20:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Maxwell article

Leifern, You stated that you felt there had been no documenting that Dr. Maxwell was recognized as superlative within the field. A brief documenting of some of his professional activities over the recent period of time with speaking engagements and visiting professorships all over the world is about all I can offer to someone who doesn't work in this field. Please check out some of the attached links & reassess your dismissal of him Thanks Rob Oliver Jr MD

South Korea 2005 [[12]] China 2005 [[13]] Keynote Speaker of Kentucky State Meeting 2005[[14]] Stockholm 2005 [[15]] Russia 2006 [[16]] Brazile 2006 [[17]] Orlando,FL ASAPS 2006 presenter/panelist [download/2006ScientificProgram.pdf] Atlanta Breast Symposium 2006/2005 [[18]] [[19]] Speaker at Northeastern Plastic Surgery Society meeting 2005[[20]] 2005 Mexico [[21]] 2005 Milan [European Conference 0.pdf#search='patrick%20maxwell%20surgery'] [[22]] Chicago 2005 ASPS meeting presenter [[23]] New Orleans 2004 ASAPS meeting speaker Quebec 2004 [[24]] 2004 Santa Fe Breast and body contouring symposium speaker[[25]] 2004 Speaker at NYU Emerging technologies meeting [OLD FILES/Program_Saturday_04S.htm] Droliver 18:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigismund/Zygmunt

Do you have an opinion: Talk:Zygmunt III Vasa ? ObRoy 03:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

White American

I'm very uncomfortable with it; it looks racist and unsourced to me. How do you feel? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As a white American, my advice is to delete it.Timothy Usher 00:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is an extremely innacurate generalisation, and I'm in favour of deletion. It should be noted that an analagous category is employed by the US Census, for better or for worse. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 02:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the report

I welcome the report, and if the conclusion at the WP:AN/I is that is should moved back, I am perfectly willing to do so. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

this is good

But why the article has to go all the way to line 36 to start the NPOV of all the false above it [26] ? Zeq 19:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith deletion of new article on Shefa'

Eliezer (under a new name) is trying to delete articles on real organizations. The claim he made on the Shefa Network page is false and disingenuous. The Shefa Network is a real group within Conservative Judaism, and in fact is already larger than many organizations that Wikipedia already has many articles on.

The Shefa Network already has several hundred members, they have their own journal, their own website, they have already had two major conferences, and two more conferences are planned soon. Yet Eliezer and a friend of his are trying to delete its article? Eliezer has refused to even discuss the issue on the article's discussion page, despite the fact that I am trying to engage in civil discourse. Eliezer and his friend haven't even tried to see if the group exists.

Note the timestamps; they tried to delete the article within minutes of its creation. They obviously didn't even try to read the group's official website, or read its academic journal. They certainly never went to any of Shefa's conferences! They also never joined Shefa's e-mail list and asked anyone about the group. Look, attempting to delete a page without even trying to ascertain the facts is clearly against Wikipedia policy. And doing so while refusing to engage in dialogue is editing in bad faith, by definition.

If someone somehow still doubts that this organization exists, I can arrange for an interview with its founder, or its journal editor, webmaster, and members of this organization who have been to Shefa's academic conferences. RK 14:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Norwegian peaks over 2000 meters page move

Hi. I have requested that this page to moved to a title that is more in line with the naming conventions used for similar lists of mountains in a country. See the talk page. RedWolf 16:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

ad hominem

Is Sharansky not a member of Likud (didn't he just challenge Nethanayhu for the leadership)? Is Likud not right wing? How is saying Sharansky is a member of the "Right wing Likud party" at all an ad hominem?Homey 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop it. You're POV pushing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

He has been a member of several parties, among them at least one he started himself. At the time of this quote, I'm not even sure what party he was member of. If you're going to characterize him at all, it is clearly more relevant that he spent 10 years in the Soviet Gulag and is a famous human rights activist. I'm no fool - by characterizing him the way you did, you are hoping to discount his opinions. And that is an ad hominem; look it up. --Leifern 22:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

MyRichUncle

If you are going to slap an advert tag on an article, please add your comments to the Talk page. Unless you do so soon, I'll revert the tag. The article in its form makes no representations or promises to anyone, so you're probably off. --Leifern 17:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't discuss the notability of the company. It merely illustrates its existence and indicates the services offered. Is it notable according to any of the criteria set out in WP:CORP? If so, can the evidence be provided?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're being inconsistent here. Now you're worrying about notability, which is another concern than advertising. But, yes, this company has gotten independent, non-trivial press coverage, such as here: [27]. So that should do it. --Leifern 17:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Some category namings

Hi Leifern: Please see:

• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 29#Category:Orthodox educational institutions to Category:Orthodox Jewish educational institutions and
• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 29#Category:Orthodox Jews to Category:Notable Orthodox Jews

Thank you. IZAK 05:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Group self-descriptions

In one case I've quoted BICOM's mandate, in a second I've quoted "Honest Reporting"'s "Our History" page and in a third case I quoted a description of CAMERA by a sympathizing group. The opinions are sourced and I've said exactly where they come from. What, exactly, is the problem?Homey 20:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The references are to analyses that seek to make a factual case against use of the term; it seems self-evident that those who speak out against it in fact are against it. But your characterization would lead someone to believe that only "pro-Israeli" groups could possibly object to the term. --Leifern 20:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is not about the use of the term in general but specifically about McGreal's Guardian reports. It's not self-evident that those criticising the article are pro-Israel. "Honest Reporting" and "Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting" do not indicate their biases in their names. Readers cannot tell if they are neutral academic groups, pro-Israeli, or pro-Palestinian, right wing or left wing. If in fact there are other groups criticising McGreal they should be named but if the only ones we can find are pro-Israel grouops then it's misleading and dishonest to suggest that they are something other than that. Homey 20:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're revealing your own bias here. I would prefer to write "anti-Israeli" in front of every mention of The Guardian, BBC, and Norwegian Press Agency, on the same rationale. If a group has published an effective repudiation of a slur, then the source is irrelevant - the repudiation should stand on its own merits. --Leifern 21:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that the Guardian does not describe itself as pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian (or anti-Israel) while, as I said, the description for BICOM and Honest Reporting came from their own websites! As for whether these groups published an "effective repudiation", that is a POV. Homey 21:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's an article from New York Jewish Week describing Camera as "pro-Israel"[28], the difference between this and your examples is that no one is using "pro-Israel" as an epithet, it is used as a factual description either by the group itself or by the group's supporters or sympathizers. Homey 21:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Need your help on the Talmud article

We need some help on the Talmud article. Our self-styled "Talmud Defender" is on a rage, deleting every single reference and quotation about historical study of the Talmud. He mass-reverts every single edit I make, every single source offered, and deletes every quote.

I cannot defend this article from his vandalism alone. "Talmud Defender" refuses to cite his sources, deletes all sources and quotes that make him uncomfortable. Not surprisingly, he seems to have no education in the subject at all. This kind of crank is precisely the sort of problem that Wikipedia is most vunerable. Without a group of people actively trying to follow official Wikipedia policy, the article will continue to be damaged by him. RK 23:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

RfM

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)