User talk:FT2

Wikipedia IRC channel: [1]

Services Link: [2]

I think I stepped on some of your changes

I made some massive organizational changes to the election controversies page, I think I overwrote some of your changes. I will attempt to clean up the damage now, sorry. Zen Master 02:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure, what needs discussing? Perhaps an archiving of most of the current election controversies talk page is in order. Zen Master 02:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Archiving Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus

I've come up against problems while attempting to archive the Talk:... the speed with which the verbiage is being developed. The last addition to your Summary section was more than 400 edits ago. Should another summary be developed? There appears to be little or no actual progress toward compromise as various debaters agree to a compromise, a summary proposal is stated, and is immediately debated again. How should I proceed? - Amgine 23:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

election controversy article

electronic voting machines are actually not the root of the controversy, please stop saying that. They are just one part of the controversy from exit poll data disrepancies to registration percentage vs results. There are even plenty of non-electronic voting machines utilized in areas with suspicious results. Zen Master 00:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Controversy header good idea

Hey, good idea putting a controversy header on the election "controversy" page. Zen Master 17:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't remove that tag again. Concentrate on addressing the concerns. -- Netoholic @ 17:43, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi FT2 - there is a question for you on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 17:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VfD

Perhaps you could rephrase your comments about Netaholic on the page and make them more in line about how he is directly trying to influence the vote on VfD? If you could do this, I'm sure this material won't be removed. This will be acceptable because it is only commenting on the vote and what he's doing, not on Netaholic's edits on other pages. Just a suggestion. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:25, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I'm the one who suggested it, I don't mind (too much). My suggestions are to make sure that you put it under Comments (as asked by User:Reene) and to limit the comment to his actions on the VfD page. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed FT2 13:24, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

cultural and historical context of Jesus

I have made my own proposal for the "new messiah" section, and would appreciate your comments (if you think it is appropriate -- I ask because you have participated in the discussion) (by the way, you aren't officially mediating a dispute at this page, are you? I don't want to be making an inappropriate request). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#New_Messiah_paragraph -- thanksSlrubenstein

FWIW

I liked your original reply on the VfD page better.  :-) Baylink 19:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for mediation

It is a requirement of Wikipedia policy that you are informed of the following link's existence: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Slrubenstein

It is also a requirement to inform of the following link (although Slrubenstein failed to comply with the requirement): Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Users CheeseDreams and Amgine

IRC

Sorry dude, I'm at work and pretty busy. I can only hop on there when I'm at home :( You can request my email address if you want though. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic/Evidence

Could I request you shift that last bit to the talk page? I'm sure you didn't mean anything malicious, but it's not appropriate to add comments without specific evidence. By the way, I agree with your comments. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Per the Evidence page notice at the top - "This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page. If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence.". Please move your comments out of my sections. I have more evidence to add, and your comments there are in the wrong place. -- Netoholic @ 04:55, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Here's the thing, guy. Don't leave ANY signed comments in the sections I've created. This includes your line referring to your comments. Everything must go. -- Netoholic @ 05:22, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

This page is going to be a mess if you don't try to keep all your evidence in one place. Please merge "History of Netoholic / Ta bu, by FT2" with the "Evidence against Netoholic", since your new section is just repeating the same issue. -- Netoholic @ 22:44, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Mediation

Please could you look for me on IRC when you can. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 15:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I missed you on IRC. I need to discuss the mediation between you and Ciz. I've not recieved an email from you yet about the aims of mediation. I know most of these were outlined in the origional request - I don't need a lot of new stuff, a summary from there will be fine. If you would prefer to have that discussion via IRC that's fine.. if you can find me there (and awake). Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi.

Pleased to make your acquaintance. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 03:20, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Cultural and historical background of Jesus

I have been working on the article. I hope you don't take any changes I made to your work personally. I started with what you did. I merged the cultural material into the historical framework you set up, so cultural developments would be introduced as they emerged historically. I added a good deal of content, and tried to keep content from your version. I rewrote some, in part for accuracy and in part for style. I compressed the intro section into one paragraph that I think is cleaner. I added some sources. There is still a good deal of material from your version that I think is inaccurate or unnecessary. I did not delete it, but I put it after my revised version (same page, just at the bottom) so we could see how more stuff can be worked in, or discuss changing it. I am hoping that if you read the current version you will see that I really tried to change your version only for the better, tried to add content that you seemed to call for, and tried to organize it into a flowing narrative. Slrubenstein

(Copy):

I'm posting this to both of you. The article's unlocked, but this does not mean wholesale revert and edit disputes. Please don't edit for a few minutes. I want to see what BOTH of you have written, and my aim will be to ask you BOTH to stop editing for a bit, stop reverting, and let me take a look 1st. For what its worth in passing my initial impression is the same as that on the article's talk page: SIrubenstein's initial edits were superior to my own wording. I also want to see Cheesedreams wordings if he's added any, and will remove either of both that seem radically POV. I plan to an extent not just to mediate the talk, but to try and guide the two of you as you write the article each contributing valuable information and points to improve it.

When I'm done I'll remove the header and at that point please both COMMENT on the articles talk page on whether you can live with whats there as a starting point. If you cant I may ask for the PROT to go back if you cant both agree something as a basis for going forward.

Please say on my talk page if this is agreeable. FT2

Yes it is agreeable -- but I must say, as far as I can tell CheeseDreams has not made any changes to the article as such -- no additions, subtractions, or changes. All he has done, several times, is to revert my work. I don't think you can compare my changes to his -- the difference is between the work you did earlier today, and the work I have done. I do admit that my work has be extensive, I only hope you will see that I did it entirely in the Wikipedia spirit, valuing NPOV and verifiability, and building on your work. I also understand that all Wikipedia articles are works in progress, and that whatever work I have done will eventually be edited by others. I do think that every change and addition I have made can easily be justified in terms of NPOV, verifiability, completeness or style. I do admit that my work has be extensive, I only hope you will see that I did it entirely in the Wikipedia spirit, and building on your work. Slrubenstein

I have made NO changes. Slrubenstein and I are in mediation on the subject, and to make changes would be a violation of that. In addition, Slrubenstein's edits throw away all that hard work in debating the various merits of the article. He has restructured the text solely for the purpose of obscuring the fact that he is reverting the NPOV of the article into his POV, and ignoring the discussions as to paragraphs etc. Therefore I will continue to revert his changes. CheeseDreams 23:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

W.r.t. "Critical review" - its perfectly easy to see his edits via the history. In fact its much easier to do so. CheeseDreams 00:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If I may also mention: Please see User:Pedant/CaHBJv1 - Amgine 01:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

link

[link]

THANKS!!

I did not have a chance to see what you were doing yesterday (nor have I taken a look yet today) but I was very impressed with the effort you were putting into this. Your process of collecting the consensus votes and working through the complete article, while at the same time posting to the talk page your progress to keep the antsy members of the contributing group abreast of your progress, seems to me to be a particularly appropriate form of agressive mediation; something I believe this article/dispute has been in need of.

While I cannot offer an appropriate reward, please know that your efforts have been noticed and strongly appreciated!

- Amgine 17:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to second this, reviewing the summary I constructed for the text, it seems like you spent a great deal of effort over this. CheeseDreams 22:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abuse of Adminship

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Slrubenstein please?CheeseDreams 08:43, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Problems with GWB intro

Please help.

On the George W. Bush article there is a dispute that you might be interested in. Kevin Baas | talk 19:01, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)