User talk:Xavexgoem/archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hi, I saw you added the expand template to lots of stubs. Expand tags should never be placed on stubs. See the documentation on Template:Expand. Garion96 (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Closure of mediation on UN Map[edit]

Hi. I was mediating this and feel we were reasonably close to an agreement. There hasn't been activity for a few days but there was a good deal before then and people were getting close, I feel. In any event I'm a little perturbed that you should close this without at least signalling your intentions: I put quite a lot of time into this, as did all those who participated. What's the procedure for reopening it? Adell 1150 (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Closure of mediation case[edit]

Why did this case get closed? Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-27/List of charities accused of ties to terrorism Nothing was really resolved in that matter, and, although there has been little activity i still consider the issue to be outstanding. What steps do you recommend I take at this point? Thank you in advance. Bonewah (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


fyi, I usually have email disabled as I have a problem with what I see as the usual canvassing that occurs through the use of email, something I do not wish to take part in. I enabled it so that you can send me an email, though I will likely disable it once you do. So, in the future, if you do want to send me an email give me a heads up so that I can enable the feature. Thanks, nableezy - 21:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-25/The Age of Reason[edit]

I see you took on the Age of Reason mediation case about a week ago. Can you let us know when the mediation will begin? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland article names[edit]

RFC - for your information[edit]

A number of users stated that informal means were not likely to help or be desired in the discussion with Bishonen earlier, and suggested that either formal discussion, or discussion at a neutral venue, was preferable. I have therefore posted a statement of concern at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen (2).

As the question/s were initially noted by yourself, I am advising you of the updated venue. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give it a look. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for understanding me. LeUrsidae96 (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Proactive request[edit]

This article could use the assistance of one or more mediators experienced with particularly controversial topic areas, as well as the attention of one or more uninvolved administrators. There is a typical pattern of long talk page posts, sprawling policy disputes that often take on an overall "wikilawyerish" tone, stagnant progress, and little administrative oversight. There were two arbitration cases centered around this article/topic: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. Any assistance you can provide in finding editors to fill the mediator and administrator roles for the Sathya Sai Baba topic would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Weird rollback...?[edit]

Wow... I must have slipped on my mouse or something... I didnt even realize i did that. Oops. Thanx for contacting me about it, though. I'll be more careful in the future.

--Wyatt915 01:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Defamation of Mr. Berri[edit]

The article you have written to be allegedly be a biography of Mr. Nabih Berri, the current Speaker of Parliament of Lebanon, is nothing but an absurd defamation.

Kindly, you are requested to either remove it, or at least remove your own opinions from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, come right in! I've never edited that article. What is the specific defamation you're accusing us of, now? Xavexgoem (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for re-editing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

community facilitation[edit]

Hello Xavexgoem, thanks for taking a look at the WP:CF project and for saying hello on Skype. This is a hectic week for real-time chat, but I'd like to discuss the project more with you on-wiki. If you have time to take one of the issues listed at Wikipedia:Community Issues and try to synthesize the existing discussion on Future or Perennial proposals pages about it, that might be a practical way to figure out what CF is good for and what modifications the idea needs.

Be well, +sj+ 03:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow. I imagine. Congratulations on your election :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please help[edit]

I took on a case a while ago regarding a dispute about inserting a Polish name for a place in an article. [1]. Unfourtunatley I've run into some IRL problems and will be absent from Wikipedia for a while, so I cannot mediate this case anymore. May you please take over for me? Thanks, -- Raziel  teatime  18:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

lolz, looks like you're doing quite well handling this (I think you should've taken this case instead >_>). IRL problems are settled but I'm going to be busy for the rest of the year (I'm a student), so I'm staying away from MedCab work until I have the time. Thanks again for taking this for me. Best wishes, -- Raziel  teatime  18:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Polish-Ukrainian mediation[edit]

Hey there again Xavexgoem. Yes I would be happy to participate in this mediation.radek (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I will also participate, thanks--Jacurek (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of us again :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


If you could take a look at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-08-27/American_Watchmakers-Clockmakers_Institute, let me know if you have any advice about how to proceed. Gigs (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am finding it hard to understand this[edit]

What advice can you give?

Olyeg 05:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

page move[edit]

As you appear to be currently online, would you mind deleting Talk:Quds Day and moving Talk:International al-Quds Day to Talk:Quds Day? The project page was moved but an admin needs to do the talk page. nableezy - 17:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Xavexgoem (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, nableezy - 17:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

why the close?[edit]

I am confused about this. It may take a month or so till people are ready to resume discussions there, but the process seemed to be quite helpful...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Having read some of the mailing list, it is extremely unlikely that I will be mediating that dispute -- or any EE dispute. When the arbitration case closes, I'll put it back in the new cases if someone requests it. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear that - but I guess you are right. I would also feel uneasy to have a person who violated my privacy and read my private emails be a neutral mediator. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Precisely. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
PS. Just wanted to end by saying that I've appreciated and respected your work as a mediator in cases I was involved in so far. Sorry we have to end it here. Good luck in your future mediations, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
And I'm sorry I violated your privacy; I never really saw it that way, and I didn't take much from it fwiw. Just irked me, and I was having a bad day. So maybe I wouldn't have said that I won't be mediating EE disputes, but you are precisely right: as long as [that one place] exists, there's no way I can be neutral, or perceived as such. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
How did you come in possesion of the mailing list? Loosmark (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "that one place"; personally I think we all make mistakes - and if you can see that reading private emails is a mistake, I see no reason why we couldn't resume our productive relationship in the future (it's not like I have not realized that I've made a bunch of mistakes myself, recently...nobody's perfect). In either case, it will probably be a while before the case settles down, and hopefully by then a lot of people (myself included) will be even more likely to let bygones be bygones :) In the end, you were doing a great job mediating those cases, and we - and Wikipedia - need such help. Take care, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Quickie mediation[edit]

Thank you for your efforts, but I think this is only going to be resolved by giving Jaakobou the boot - it is about time he was banned from the article. He is wasting everyone's time with utter tendentiousness. I won't be wasting any further time on him. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yield, yield, yield. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The C of E‎[edit]

Not speedy, Snow and WP:IAR; if the disputed content is voluntarily removed, there is no purpose in further debate, and both his and your decisions are to be commended. It all makes for a better working environment, and anything that minimises the drama can only facilitate that. In retrospect, CofE should have perhaps been engaged in discussion and the issues explained earlier, and from that perspective, perhaps an MfD was a tad heavy-handed. However, I think all will walk away from this, forget it, and move forwards. Whether CofE will realise his ambition to be an Admin remains clouded by this incident, and has probably delayed it by at least six months. You acted correctly in the circumstances, in my view, FWIW. Rodhullandemu 23:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You're pretty funny.[edit]

I just happened upon the Wrong Version article. Isn't sarcasm great? There must be a barnstar for making someone laugh...BRB -- Rico 02:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

{{subst:The Barnstar of Good Humor}}, maybe. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I award me this award:

Barnstar of Humour3.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
per above

... I think that was the intention. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Something to think about[edit]

I don't suppose that you've followed the Mattisse ArbCom case? (No? I'll take it as proof of natural good sense.) IMO it's a much bigger version of Scuro's problems with the ADHD case. At the moment, they're trying to find a way to get useful information to the mentors (four of them, I think) without having a dozen editors dump knee-jerk "defense" and "opposition" statements on the pages about every little thing. And, like Scuro, Mattisse really doesn't want the conversation on her user talk page. (Anyone who gets that many complaints would develop a twitch whenever the new message box pops up.)

You might want to look over WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FMattisse It appears that they currently believe that not identifying basic ground rules from the very start (e.g., "Report perceived problems on this page" or "Mattisse should not edit this section" or "If you can't explain in less than 50 words, then it's voluntary drama, not a problem", or whatever might be useful) has exacerbated the mess, especially after Mattisse started removing negative comments from the centralized complaint page.

I don't have a specific solution to offer you, but you might want to consider their problems and see how many of them you can avoid. I'm sure you agree with me that there's no virtue in making this any more drama-oriented than necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

More unsolicited advice: I hope you are watching Literaturegeek's talk page. Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Folks, I have a lot on my plate. I ain't responsible for anyone's behavior. If you have specific issues you want to address, then please e-mail me. Thanks, Xavexgoem (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou's time machine[edit]

I'm afraid things seem to be escalating regarding Jaakobou's bending of the time-space continuum on Muhammad al-Durrah - he is now attempting to delete sources that contradict his preferred chronology. He is currently attempting to push the issue on the reliable sources noticeboard. I wonder if you would like to say something there about your attempt to mediate this dispute? Please see [2]. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be covered... you can say that I tried, but stopped because I was concerned about the fabric of space. (redacted)Xavexgoem (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines[edit]

Hey Xav. I've got the preliminaries out of the way - are you okay to take a lead on it from here? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow... I completely forgot to watchlist that. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to police the page, as one disputant was unable to control his desire to make a threaded reply, even though you'd specifically said that you didn't want such. —SlamDiego←T 14:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


It was kind of you to offer the out, but I for one have been pretty powerless to bring skip back, and an editor whose efforts would be essential to drawing skip back wants him gone.

I've not interacted with Skip as much as have some other editors, and don't know that much about his over-all editing, but he and I managed to have our disagreements without getting our backs up. I wasn't part of the pile-on, and I've previously summoned admins when he's been abused on the WikiProject page. —SlamDiego←T 09:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I find the above comment ("powerless to bring skip back") strange as SD's only interaction with Skip has been to leave this message on his talk page [3]. Also, unlike what SD implies, I don't wish Skip gone, I wish for mediation to continue. But, I'm not here to talk about SD.
I came to explain about why I participated in the ANI discussion on Skip (which I did not bring or participate in bringing). I felt it my duty as part of the team editing Sustainability to participate in the ANI discussion about Skip's behavior there. It was my thinking that as a completely unrelated issue to the issue being mediated (weight in Economics), that this was proper. If any of this was inappropriate, I do apologize. Being new to mediation, (actually any dispute resolution in general apart from RfCs) I'm not sure what is appropriate and what is not. I'm happy to start mediation again if Skip comes back (unlikely it seems), or if other parties wish to continue without Skip. If we do start mediation again, perhaps you could clarify about what is proper behavior? Thanks. Anyway, just wanted to apologize for anything I did which may have been inappropriate. Regards, LK (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm powerless to bring skip back because I didn't act to drive him away, and I cannot plausibly get the editor who sought to drive him away to undo the results of his actions. Nor do I have a knowledge of skip's editing history that I might call upon in attempting to defend him against the charges at AN/I.
That message is the only that I've left on skip's talk page, but hardly the only interaction that I've ever had with him. And his response to my comment to his talk page was indeed to remove the item that he'd listed, without quarrel. —SlamDiego←T 11:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


Sorry. In the future I will try harder to avoid responding. --LK (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Xavexgoem (talk)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-20/List of charities accused of ties to terrorism[edit]

You pinged this case to see if it was still active, as far as Im concerned, it is. Thanks Bonewah (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..[edit]

Admin mop.PNG Xavexgoem ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


There is an RfC in the International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup. -- Rico 15:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


I removed the autoblock associated with User:Brews ohare's block, whom you unblocked yesterday. I presume it was uncontroversial since you performed the unblock yourself. Please let me know if that's incorrect.  Frank  |  talk  21:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


why have you closed my thread? So far only 2 editors commented. Loosmark (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the previous thread was closed. It was about the same matter. You know and I know that the thread will devolve into a bunch of mud-slinging and nothing will get done. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Just wait until Jacurek appeals. So far, all discussion around him -- when he is neither requesting unblock nor able to discuss the matter -- will appear partisan. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
You said that you know the dispute very well, I doubt that very much since I have never seen you edit on the London Parade page. Loosmark (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know the content dispute, you are right. But if memory serves, you folks have been at each others' throats for a while now. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
If you don't know the content dispute why have you closed the thread then? i don't understand what you mean with the throats comment either, as i most certainly wasn't on anybody's throat and i don't remember ever having any problems with Future Perfect either. Loosmark (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


Wow, that was so quick – a big thank you for removing the attempted outing attempt, Xavexgoem! Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Fut. Perfect actually got there before me :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Soliciting Advice[edit]

Hello! I am a newer mediator at WP:MEDCAB. A situation in an ongoing discussion I am mediating has begun to prove vexing. Since you are a MEDCAB coordinator and experienced mediator, I would like to get your opinion.

  • I have been mediating a dispute regarding the Donghu people article at its talk page. The process was going well. The group of four or five editors participating in the mediation had agreed that a certain version of the article should be used as a starting point for reasoned discussion.
  • One editor though (User:Alexjhu), continued to make radical edits to the article and refused to discuss them on the talk page.
  • Most recently, when the discussion did not seem to be going "his way", this editor started making serious legal threats here and refused to respond to requests that he stop.
  • This seems very inappropriate to me, and this editor's participation in the discussion has become counterproductive. I wonder whether I should ask an administrator to consider sanctions in view of the clear legal threats the editor is making.

Thanks in advance for your advice! —Finn Casey * * * 01:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked per WP:Legal threats. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply! The discussion will be much smoother without that sort of confronational tone. Best wishes! :) —Finn Casey * * * 01:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding your comment on my talk page: a look at the history of the Donghu people article shows that Alexjhu has been slow edit-warring with three users over the past month (plus me in the past couple days). I really think he is ultimately well-intentioned, and I was hoping when I opened the mediation that he would be amenable to a compromise. However, in the past few days his talk page edits have become more confrontational. Here for example he describes the views presented by two other editors as "personal fixations and rascist bigotry". That language makes it difficult to promote a collaborative atmosphere. I wish there was some way to get through to him that the collaborative process takes time, and that insults are very counterproductive. Thanks again for your help! —Finn Casey * * * 01:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Skip Sievert[edit]

I'd like to note yet another personal attack from Skip at Talk:Howard Scott‎. If you have the power to ban him, at least for a week or two, it would save dozens of editors a lot of grief. JQ (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind offer of help at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attacks at AfD. If there is something you could do in the light of this latest attack, reported here, it would be a great help. Johnfos (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Another attack, claiming that anyone who is an expert on a topic, thereby has a COI at Talk: Energy economics. This has been through just about every Wiki process going, and still nothing is done by anyone. Is there a chance you will actually ban this guy, or are we wasting more of our time by reporting particular instances? JQ (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ed Boks[edit]

I don't understand what's going on here. No matter who initially created the article, it was improved by others, starting with me. I added proper sources and tried to fix the POV issues, and now it's being deleted apparently because of who initially created it. I would appreciate it if you could clarify this matter for me because frankly I'm a bit confused by all this. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Attacks at AFD AN/I[edit]

Hello--You left this comment. Another admin (llywrch) left this one. I just wanted to get a feel for "what happens next" in regard to that AN/I. Is the discussion effectively over now, or is it worth continuing? Is it your judgment that we should let things lie until there are more problems, and then message you (or head to ArbCom, about which I know almost nothing)? Would we start another AN/I if there is a repeat of similar troubles? Should we consider Skipsievert "officially warned" to change their behavior in some way?

Anyway, thanks. I'm just trying to figure out where things lie. I'm going to leave a similar message for llywrch. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Kinser[edit]

You raised some good points that I considered before sitting down to write this article. With my comments, I hope I was able to assuage your concerns over it. I am thinking that the Wikipedia:Lead section needs some expansion. Perhaps you would want to work with me on it? Also, I appreciate the "well written" comment. I worked really hard on that one.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I see your point. I have expanded the lead, which I think helps to properly contextualize the intersection between the lobbying efforts and the personal details that have attracted media. Because of the nature of their business, lobbyists rarely appear in the media, and the fact that the media covered her personal life in such detail is remarkable in of itself.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Skipsievert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


Since you mentioned closing [4]. I have pointed out that he has been involved in the discussion and consensus standards make it clear that involved users are not to closed. The whole issue was over an involved user trying to close and impose sanctions. Also, other people have made it clear that only univolved users can have a voice in the discussions, and many of the oppose votes are nullified by their admittance of being involved. Could you please sort out these issues so there doesn't have to be yet another ANI thread because of an out of process push for such things? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Was he involved prior to this thread? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't matter. He was involved in the discussion and, like RfA, anyone involved in the discussion is not impartial to closing the discussion. You cannot voice an opinion and then be deemed impartial in determining the outcome. That is true of AfD, RfA, and every other process we have, and it is a major problem according to our standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
So what you're saying is he wasn't involved prior to this thread? He would have no reason to be spiteful. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of being spiteful. What did I say that lead you to believe that spite was an issue in this? Also, at least four admin had expressed doubt as to the legitimacy of the entire process and either closed it or stated it should have been closed. This has been undone by involved users, and closing by an involved user would be highly inappropriate. Admin are not supposed to contradict other admin, especially when they are involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Was he involved in his capacity as an administrator? Because you gotta talk things through at AN/I to get to the bottom of things. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
"Comment: In my opinion, what should or should not be done with Ottava depends entirely on what what kind of encyclopedia we think we are building [...] --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)"
Once he stated the above, he was no longer allowed to close the thread and make a decision about a sanction per the sanction protocols which state that an uninvolved user closes the discussion and makes a decision. Please read for more details from an Arbitrator explaining how they are determined. Please note, if these actions are upheld, the proper recourse is to ArbCom to ask for clarification on the matter, since any editing restriction is within their purview. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's the thing, Ottava: You know my opinion on the matter; I posted it directly above your thread on his talk page. Now, you're saying that I couldn't make an opinion, since I'm involved because (A) I'm on Wikivoices, and hence speak with Durova reguarly, (B) I contributed to the thread, specifically to have it closed, and (C) I've communicated with Regentspark about this matter. Would you rather I unarchived the thread, then decided, hey, this is going nowhere (because it wouldn't be), and then archive it again with what I determined the consensus to be? (and the consensus may change, but you gotta ask yourself, dude, whether it's headin' in your favor).
Now, I can't do that, because I'm involved for asking admin-y questions on an admin board. The thread stays archived. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
My statement here is because you posted there - I'm asking you to ask him to rescind his non-impartial close because I will have to appeal to ArbCom, and they would be looking at an admin who did the very problem that started this whole mess - which was violate our protocols and inappropriately determine something while being involved. It doesn't matter if it is "heading in my favor" or not. What matters is that people do not cut corners and go against our policies. Furthermore, the thing hasn't even been open for a day, so there is no way to declare anything, and I already pointed out on his talk page that he ignored many of the people that said the whole thing was either inappropriate or just wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

About the last comments on Mediation[edit]

Hey Xav, as you recommended I won’t reply to MarshalN20 directly as I don’t want to end up in a long threaded discussion. However I think that his interventions so far illustrate my problem and I think there are some things he mentioned in his last comment require some comments from me.

  • He said “this hasn't been because we (as in me, Lupos, and Dentren) prevented any addition into the history section” while actually the reason why we are on Mediation right now is because each time I open my mouth or any other Bolivian intervene we get fiercely attacked by MarshalN20 as it can be seen here [5] [6] [7] I try to use the regular procedures for dispute resolution like the reliable sources noticeboard to get help to deal with the problem [8] and MarshalN20 comes aggressively to post accusations which aren’t even coherent but at the end prevent others to help [9], he even tried to intimidate me with attempts of outing [10]. That’s the reason I don’t edit the article because I feel I’m wasting my time because everything I do is reverted, I get insulted, I get denigrated it causes a big problem, MarshalN20 takes it to other boards he talks bad about me with other admins, like if I were committing a crime.
  • Regarding the edition he mentions that I made, it was because I observed that many parts of the article are either WP:OR such as the drawing he also showed Image:Danzan san miguel 7 diablos.jpg it says Saint Michael and seven devils, there isn’t any publication where it says it’s related to the Diablada not even in the site from where it was taken, yet it’s used to fill the infobox and put guitar and other instruments that aren’t used in the Diablada. Also many parts what it’s written in the article does not correspond to the source quoted or when a Bolivian city is mentioned that information is hidden; that paragraph was an example the source [11] was quoted to mention Juli (the Peruvian city) but below it said “And in Potosí (Bolivian city) a dialog of faith was recited” I consider that it was unethical to hide that information, besides the Spanish priests by that year weren’t just a few they were many and had missions in many cities of the continent, the source isn’t saying that they were the same persons. And the “Regional Variations” part is also a big problem because it also falls into Original Research because some of those dances aren’t Diabladas, they are other dances that have their own name and aren’t related to the article, that section is a product of retaliation after a discussion we had about the definition of the Diablada.

Sorry for the length but I think those points should be clear before we continue. --Erebedhel - Talk 19:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ehh Xav I noticed you closed the mediation, I'm terribly sorry about that but now what will happen? What should I do about the article? --Erebedhel - Talk 03:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I suggest Medcom. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok Xav, I'll fill a request then, thank you once more for your time. --Erebedhel - Talk 04:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


I have a suggestion to your comment on the talk page. // Gbern3 (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop[edit]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation cabal case Race and Intelligence[edit]

I just noticed this new mediation cabal case, Race and Intelligence. It so happens that I am somewhat familiar with the academic literature, as my research is primarily on economics, education and development. I would also like to participate in order to observe how mediation is conducted, as I would like to volunteer as a mediator in the future.

Is it appropriate for me to sit in on the mediation and offer comments based on my expertise? If I can participate, how should I do so? Should I just comment on the page as I feel appropriate? I promise to be reticent and restrained in my comments, and will likely only comment briefly, if at all.

thanks, --LK (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I take it from your silence that you find that idea problematic. It's OK, I'll just sit in the sidelines and watch. --LK (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I meant to get back to you. I've been spacing. What I recommend is not to add yourself to the list of parties -- not because you're not a party, but because you get a list that long and everything starts to get really intimidating. You're free to comment -- although I'd wait a bit till things get a little underway. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm going to sit in, and will only comment if there is an issue that I find screamingly misconceived, or if there's one that I have especial knowledge of. Given how knowledgeable the participants involved are, you'll probably not hear a peep out of me throughout. best, --LK (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


I found an irc app on my iPhone! What channels are you usually on?

Just note I won't be on for a while though. Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Medcab's channel is #wikipedia-medcab on freenode. I won't be on for a while, either, so no hurry. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

R+I mediation[edit]

We need to find some framework or objective procedure to get to a conclusion at some point in the Race/Intel mediation. I feel that the debates are just restarting in a new place (although calmer which is good progress), and if there is no definiate "timetable" or "method" that we follow, I don't see this getting anywhere soon. I would reccomend we issue some statement that lists the issues to be discussed in the forms of statements. These statements would be the bottom of the pyramid that would lead us to the top of the issue.

Facing the problem of "Should the Hereditarian viewpoint get coverage and if so, how much?" is not the best way to immediately start. Some parties have proposed good ideas to review the heart of the matter including the validity and reliability of sources involved, and reviewing other central (but not direct) issues.

Lastly, in the end we cannot just determine how much coverage the viewpoint can recieve. A series of mutual guidelines needs to be drawn up eventually about what the coverage would include (if included at all); this would avert future conflicts. Reubzz (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to tackle the smaller problems first. If it doesn't look like anything is getting done after a while, folks start to lose confidence. Prove first that something is getting done before going with a timetable. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Tien Shan Pai article Mediation[edit]

Hi, Xavexgoem.

I am putting up essentially identical text on GrooveDog's page, just for full disclosure.

I was wondering what is going on with the mediation attempt that I initiated. I can see that it was relisted as new, and am curious as to what that indicates.

Considering that the problem has essentially exploded in complexity (with the addition of two more extremely contentious editors) since I initiated the mediation attempt, what do you think I should do? Should I include them in the mediation attempt? Should I withdraw my mediation request and see if equilibrium on the article can be reached with more voices? Should we simply continue as is?

This is an argument that is full of emotion and energy on what is essentially a very minor page (even in the Wikipedia Martial Arts project). So I can very much understand a certain reluctance to become involved in such a messy matter. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Junzi (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I apoligize for not being able to be "fully into it", Junzi. Recently I've been very swamped IRL, having time onwiki mostly only for maintenance etc, and wasn't really able to have the concentration necessary to appropriately mediate your dispute. It has been "relisted", meaning that another member of the cabal should pick up where I left off. I hope that they can better help you. GrooveDog FOREVER 03:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and attention. Junzi (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-20/List of charities accused of ties to terrorism[edit]

Hi, you dropped by my medcab case a couple of weeks ago and Im hoping you can help me out. It seems our moderator User:Vicenarian has retired and our case is still ongoing. What do you recommend I do at this point? Thanks in advance. Bonewah (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for talk page protection[edit]

As you know I am mediating a dispute on the article 'Race and Intelligence'. As I have noted near the bottom of the page, I have posted a deadline for final statements before I evaulate the issues and set out an agenda to work with. I would like to request that you protect the talk page for 48 hours to allow this to take its course.

Thanks and Cheers! --Reubzz (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Carnatic Music[edit]

Dear Admn please make this important change < here> to CM article that you have blocked. It will remove the unscientific statements from the article (attributing to god when real human Purandaradasa invented the music). The current owner of the article NcM is not permitting. NOT NAADAPRIYA —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC) banned.

Do you have a reliable source that says he invented the music? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Admn Xavexgoem :Based on information posted already by different editors of Wikipedia following are references.
  1. Dr. Piero Scaruffi (international author on music books) in the article A Summary on Indian Music: 'The founder of Karnataka style is considered to be Purandara Daasa'. : [12]
  2. Prof VSS Rao- 'Shri Puradara Daasa is known as the pra-pithamaha (founder) of modern Carnatic classical music.' [13]
  3. Shri P.N.Krishnamoorthy – Director. [14] The Sangeetha Vidyalaya 'Purandara Dasa (1484 - 1584) can be said to be the principal founder of the Carnatic system as we know it today.'
  4. Kamat Research Database : 'The Father of Carnatic Music Composer Purandaradasa (15/16th Century) was a great literary and musical genius. [15]
  5. Independent group: 'Shri Purandara Daasa is known as the pra-pithamaha (founder) of modern Carnatic classical music.' [16]
  6. In the book 'MS – A Life in Music' by TJS George. New Delhi: HarperCollins, 2005 (4th Impression).-ISBN 81-7223-527-5. '... the development of Carnatic music from the times of Purandara Dasa (1480-1564), considered to be the father of the genre'

(please see Music genre)

All wikipedia editors of Carnatic Music have unanimously agreed that Purandaradasa is Pitamaha ( meaning father in Kannada ) of Carnatic Music. In English to call someone the "father" of something means he created it, not merely enhanced it or popularized it . Therefore Purandaradasa is called either the creator or inventor or founder of todays Carnatic Music (Aka Karnataka Music).

Sir therefore please make the changes which many other editors tried but failed due to the action of current owner Ncmvocalist of the article NOT NAADAPRIYA

Hi Xavexgoem, we went through an article RfC on Carnatic music, he was found to be a problem user, was topic banned by the community, and later site-banned for this sort of puppetry (see the relevant cat). If you need more details, please feel free to contact me. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Above mentioned RFC was terminated without completion [17] : NOT NAADAPRIYA
banned user has been accordingly confirmed and blocked by CU. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What can I do[edit]

I feel I am being gang-up on by administrators after a dispute had been resolved. It seems now I am being harassed by them. Roger Zoel (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Just looked over the contribs. I'm not a party to this dispute. I do suggest you stick with using four tildes. We are not a "police state", but I would say that many of us see this as a policy state. Even if it's a little ridiculous. Just don't do anything stupid. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I already know that! But the admins keep bothering me on my talk page. "Police state" is my perception at the moment. I want them to stop harasing me, since the issue has been resolved. Roger Zoel (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

They'll go away after a while, so long as you don't do whatever it was you were doing that got so much attention in the first place. "Police state" may be the perception, but trust me: we are far too disorganized to have anything that even approaches that. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you part if the committee to help or am I in the wrong place? I think I am confused since I saw your name listed with another one. All I did is cleaned up links to my talk page (signatures) and I was told it was not policy to do that. When I again reviewed the SIG document, it did state in their that I can do it. Then after that, someone changed it to include not to use it. I am not that big on coming up with exceptional wording to state my arguments. Roger Zoel (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy only goes so far - if there's a consensus that what you're doing is wrong, then people will start to complain. Consensus > Policy. Don't worry about it; just don't do it again. It's not a big deal. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Candidate review[edit]

Hi, I was reviewing your candidacy for my voter guide, and found myself perplexed by something... Why don't you have a userpage? I usually like to check userpages to get a sense of who a person is, what their interests are, maybe a bit of information about their "real-life" persona. Is there a reason that you are choosing not to provide that information? --Elonka 18:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I just prefer the redirect. I have nothing significant to put on my userpage. I also avoid brand-name clothing for pretty much the same reasons for not having a userpage. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Things I'm interested in: Where are you from? What kinds of articles do you enjoy working on? Do you have any GA or FA articles? Ever received any barnstars? What's your wiki-philosophy? Why do you enjoy Wikipedia? It just helps me to get a more well-rounded sense of a candidate. --Elonka 23:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm in Wisconsin, but where I'm from doesn't (shouldn't?) impact me much. But it does get bitterly cold in winter; I suppose that could reflect my mood. I don't have any GAs or FAs to my name (I'd have them on the top of this page if I did). A do have a couple of barnstars, but I wouldn't put them in a reward section... I've always seen them as for my benefit – they lift me up – more than for anybody elses; I suppose that's just me.
My wiki-philosophy is best summed up by the consensus over at meatball wiki, and the answers to the questions in the candidacy page. And, of course, I enjoy Wikipedia :-)
I probably will need to have a userpage if I'm an arbitrator. I've been thinking that it'd be nice to have some sort of itinerary posted (although that could just as well be at the top of user talk). Xavexgoem (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC) I suppose, in short, that my userpage is also my talk page

The Chariot (band)[edit]

I have responded to your concerns at the GA review. Thanks, -- Noj r (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving![edit]

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (please comment)[edit]

Hey Xavexgoem, I know that you have been quite involved with the Honduras/coup articles, and I would appreciate your comment here: Talk:Chronology_of_events_of_the_2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#Requested_move I hope that you can kind of understand the logic of what I was saying there, even if you don't agree with the move. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Editor assistance[edit]

I saw your offer at WP:EA #88. I would appreciate either advice or mediation.

I'm an admin, but am not active in (or any good at) WP:DR. I am in a dispute with another editor, User:Lambanog. The dispute is about the status of the short-lived First Philippine Republic as (a) an insurgency or (b) a sovereign state — I say (a), backed up by copious cites, but feel that alternative views deserve due weight if cite-supported; Lambanog says (b) but cannot or will not provide supporting cites (I've looked without success for sources supporting his view). This point has historically been a point of contention in a number of articles about the Philippines (explained ad nauseum on the talk pages of one of the articles mentioned below).

I had created this article (an old version) in hopes of it becoming a wikilinkable consensus-supported take on the point at dispute issue, with supporting cites. That article evolved into this article (note the NPOV tags in both articles, placed there by Lambanog). Discussion has continued without progress towards resolution in the last two sections of Talk:Sovereignty of the Philippines.

My take on our differences is that they involve strong nationalistic POV feelings on the part of Lambanog and a fixation on WP:V on my part. Discussion on the talk pages of those articles escalated at one point to this incident report by me against Lambanog, which I withdrew after he pointed out that I had not dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's of WP:DR (and because neither of us had the stomach to go through official DR). I summed up my take on the dispute on his talk page here.

Currently, the second article (the first is now a redirect) remains in NPOV dispute and Lambanog edits according to his view of the point at issue (e.g., this recent edit). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Has he been linked to WP:BURDEN? If he can't provide the sources, then it can't be there. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
There are generally three options in these debates: Either explain within the article the dispute, provided there are sources surrounding insurgency vs. sovereign state; drop the issue; or make a compromise. If the description suggests an insurgency, then it should be wiki-linked to somewhere, but as always you should let the facts speak for themselves. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't pointed him explicitly at the BURDEN section of WP:V. The closest I've come is here, to which he responded that the problem is not WP:V, it is POV -- apparently he feels that my not presenting (being unable to) cite-supported material supporting his POV constitutes a NPOV problem with the article.

Re the explain option, I'm open that and have even looked unsuccessfully for sources supporting his POV. At one point in the incident report discussion, he said "One could use Westphalian principles just as effectively to argue [on behalf of his POV]"; apparently, he feels that it is an NPOV violation for the article(s) not to make such an argument, though I feel that it would be WP:OR to do so (we haven't discussed that).

The only compromise I see would be to say that sovereignty was in dispute during the period of the First Philippine Republic (1stPR) as it was during between the U.S. and Japan during WW-II, but I have difficulty categorizing the 1stPR as an insurgency which places sovereignty in dispute without either (a) seeing supporting sources cited or (b) elevating some other insurgencies to the level of a sovereignty-dispute.

I see today that I've missed seeing a question by him on 26 Nov on that talk page about putting the article(s) up for AfD. I think that would replace the drop the issue option.

I could try to open up the WP:BURDEN and WP:OR issues, I guess, but I think that I would just be continuing to bang my head against the wall. Think that should be the next step (along with a mention of our discussion here, in the interest of disclosure)? Wtmitchell Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Arguing via NPOV almost never works. V and NOR are much more iron-tight. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


I wonder whether you can find out what is going on with this newly arrived and inexperienced editor, who is supposedly acting as a mediator. He hasn't edited WP for about one week. This seems very odd. Has he decided that he needs a wikibreak after his spell of editing from November 5-22? Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification[edit]

Hi Xav,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Ottoman surrender of Jerusalem restored.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 9, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-12-09. howcheng {chat} 23:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! That's my birthday! Xavexgoem (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation![edit]

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

  • Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
  • Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
  • Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
  • Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
  • Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
  • Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
  • Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
  • Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
  • Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
  • In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew talk at 03:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC at 2009 Honduran coup d'état regarding mention of the constitutional crisis in the lede[edit]

Hey Xavexgoem, sorry to bother you again, but since there has been a lot of revert activity regarding this issue, I thought you might like to opine. I'd like your opinion, and that of other editors that have been interested in the Honduran articles, at Talk:2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#RfC:_Do_the_sources_support_the_mention_of_coup_as_part_of_the_constitutional_crisis_in_the_lede_of_this_article.3F. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday![edit]

75px Hey, Xavexgoem. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
-- MisterWiki talk contribs 00:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, Xavexgoem! Face-smile.svg Moogwrench (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Advice Sought[edit]

A new user User:Alb28(sockpuppet?) has created 3 new articles and injected similar information into other articles with very dubious content about BLP Marcelo Chimirri David Romero Ellner and Financial irregularities during the Manuel Zelaya administration. Could you look quickly at them and advise what should be done. speedy deletion?? advice would be much appreciated.Cathar11 (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Posted to BLP and it is now at AN/I so Im ok for now. sorry to bother you.Cathar11 (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Point for mediation[edit]

As far as I'm concerned, the central problem at the Race and intelligence article is summed up in these two comments: To SYNTH or not to SYNTH. I would appreciate a mediator's comment on this. If there is some SYNTH loophole I'm unaware of which backs up Slrubenstein's argument, please do point it out. If not, please help us (finally!) get some closure on this issue so that we can get back to doing something productive. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation! (reminder)[edit]

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup. Note: this is the same message from last week, but you are receiving it because you have not removed your name from the list yet! Please do so if you still plan on participating. iMatthew talk at 22:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom elections[edit]

Sorry to see you didn't get elected, I think you would make a good arb. Maybe next year? Anyway, don't get discouraged, and remember that 235 people also thought you'd make a good arb. Anyway, keep up the great work with medcab. The WordsmithCommunicate 05:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) It could be worse: I could've gotten in! :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]


Wikipedia justice wp.png The Newyorkbrad Dispute Resolution Barnstar
An earnest and heartfelt thank you for your long-term dedication to dispute resolution. Your continual mediation efforts are especially worthy of note. You dispute resolution contributions to the project are invaluable. I hope you will continue your amazing work! Vassyana (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow![edit]


Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Your block of Tacv[edit]

Why have you done that? How can we continue the discussion now? Three weeks, why? Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you have got involved, there was nothing excessive happening there, there was a mediator, the wordsmith, did you discuss it with him? Would you please explain why you got involved and why you felt the need to block him for sucjh a long period of time as he was clearly involved in discussion there, now what have we got there, nothing. He is requesting unblock, it would be conducive to the discussion he was involved in if you unblocked him and gave him a warning for whatever it was you blocked him for. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
He was blocked for behavior. He was warned, too, and his reaction belied his essential incivility. You gotta solve the conduct equation before the content one. You are essentially his proxy, now, having roughly the same opinion iirc. Consensus isn't made from numbers -- not ones these smalls -- don't worry about it. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Why did you get involved? Three weeks is excessive imo, did you discuss it with the moderator at the discussion? I am nobodies proxy, I will request the debate wait until he is unblocked or his block expires, this blocking is imo excessive increase from his only other block of 24 hours. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I discussed it with Xavexgoem after the block was made, and I think a short block for incivility is reasonable. I also think that a reduction in the length (to somewhere between 48 hours and 1 week) would also be a good idea, in the interest of moving forward. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I saw your comments and it is coming down to a simple choice, I would like to see all the involved editors there for the finale, anyway, I'm at my limit, I ll have a look tomorrow and see where it is at. Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


Off2riorob implied on Tacv's talk page that Tacv had never been warned. I pointed out he was warned and he ignored it. Tacv deleted that. You probably know all this already. And I tend to agree that 3 weeks was excessive. We'll see if he changes his approach at all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for the unblock, X. Am now trying to resolve some of those issues. Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The trick is to take the vitriol coming from others and reduce them to the saner messages held within them. Lots of folks basically go "you're an idiot, blahblahblah, because of X, not that I expect you to figure that out, blahblahblah."
Which can kind of get in the way of looking seriously at that X. Just remember that :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Further to this, I need some advice on David A before a situation escalates. Based on the comment made here (it is linked) [18]; what I saw going at Galactus yesterday [19] and a general inability to grasp some basic points outlined at Talk pages [20]; and the evidence I presented here [21] I think there is more than enough to proceed with some kind of action.

I've been very tolerant; and attempted many, many times to reason with this person, but am now faced with the realization that this editor's medical condition may be effecting their judgement when editing. I've been called a liar; a vandal; a manipulator and now am apparently a "bother to everyone". The sad reality is (to judge by Galactus in the last 24 hours if nothing else), if this person were not editing, 95% of the issues would disappear. As I feel mediation is pointless (I've made the peace with another editor, but feel it is a lost cause with this person), can I go back to the ANI and present the case? Otherwise, this is only going to continue. I also feel that the medical condition issue will need some experienced evaluation.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you do, don't mention "medical conditions" - you are not qualified to even mention them, certainly not in an AN/I: it appears as an ugly insinuation, even here. Everything else is fine, but only approach an editor as an editor... not someone who has trait X or condition Y. If they're failing to collaborate, that's a problem of the editor not of the person. Just remember that. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I have had to encourage Asgardian not to continue to bring up the "medical conditions" thing, as it does sound bad, like picking on someone for a handicap (even if it's not meant that way). I've also recommended to both of them to try mediation, as going round in circles as they have been is getting them (and the rest of us) nowhere. Of course, their situation has gotten pretty ugly and may well be beyond mediation, but I figure it never hurt to at least try; arbitration between the two may be the eventual step, unfortunately. BOZ (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
And of course if either of them want honesty for their actions, they should file a user conduct RfC. We'll see. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Have one going for Asgardian at the moment; it may be a good idea for Asgardian to do one on David if he so chooses (I'll hazard a guess that it would be more productive than an AN/I thread). BOZ (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like full blown bigotry and discrimination to me (and even more waranted as such than idiots who hate anyone with a suntan, which is how ridiculous I've always found racism), although half of the reason he does it is to get a rise out of me, as he does with anything that works. The other half being to gain some sort of "automatic justification", since he knows that I freely admit it, but don't like to talk about it, but all it really means, which he knows full well, is that I have to fight extra hard to keep down my annoyance from his non-stop provocations, and he apparently only finds this funnier. Encyclopedia Dramatica wibes anyone?
Regardless, the only "problem" I've ever been is that I'm outspoken/honest/have very limited filters both ways, and tend to get obsessive about accuracy and censorship. That's it. Hardly complaints material. Not that this has stopped Asgardian from attacking me through severely misrepresented ban-attempts the exact same way he did Tenebrae before. (Not that the admins considered it of particular merit in either case, and one even threatened to ban Asgardian instead) But Asgardian has stated outright that he thinks in terms of "shooting oneself in the foot by complaining about him" (taken in context with his continued threats to different people) and provoking me to get easily quoted statements (one of the reasons given for his most recent ban) And it should be noted that I've turned so reasonable that I was even willing to let go of several Manga section pages, that I mostly wrote myself, without a fuzz when these came up for deletion, and generally write up continuous new versions of edits in attempts to find neutral solutions. The reason that we don't get along is that we're basically opposites on these personality issues. I can't stand deceit, dishonesty, bias-driven censorship, fact-distortions, etc, and he can't understand authenticity, but finds it funny to poke a lot, and loves intricate satire and non-overt provocation. Dave (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
All y'all need to chill, or I'll file the RfC/U on both of ya. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, an RfC without mention of the aforementioned topic. That's fine (am very chilled). Thanks Asgardian (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Hip-hop dance/GA1[edit]

If you're going to review this, can it be done ASAP? It's been up way too long without a review. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You can still do the review of the article in the meantime, then put it on hold until he comes back. There may only be a few small issues that other editors will be able to fix in his place. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I recommend that you fail this now - it has been on hold for two months which is way to long, seven days is the norm. If the nominator is away they can bring it back when the review points have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to fail it for the sake of procedure. I'll just remove it from the list... Xavexgoem (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


I will be more available to help out with MedCab and other dispute resolution matters going forward.[22] If you need a hand with anything, let me know. Vassyana (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection on Creation according to Genesis[edit]

Thanks for the protection / intervention. It was sorely needed! Cheers Nefariousski (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It was needed by those who feel the need to label the Bible as a fairy tale. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, y'all can either complain or do somethin' about it. For the record (since I fear insinuation), I believe it to be highly POV to label the bible (or any scripture) a "myth". The connotation is totally wrong. But the full prot is simply to stop the edit warring. Any reader who comes across the page will see that it's not a reliable article. It's an injustice, but I cannot cynically wait for the version I believe in and protect on that one. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Protecting the article for a few days, before its resurrection, was probably the right thing to do. However, whichever editor (not one of these two warriors) made the statement that "there's no Genesis 2" ought to be topic-banned on the grounds of ignorance, since he is apparently unaware that the Bible books are divided into chapters (1, 2, 3, etc.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
And be sure to warn him about this.. I'd use nice words, though ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this is a good time to pull out this old-old Woody Allen quote: "I told him to be fruitful and multiply... but not in those words!" :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link where that ignoranimous said there was no Genesis 2:[23] And, by yumpin' yiminy, it's the guy who started this section! Shazam! With that revelation, I can only say this: [24]:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well... sometimes you just gotta sigh, move on, and reflect on IAR. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I did. It came out looking like RAI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
If by that you mean Radioactive Iodine, then I think you've got it :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Could be. I just couldn't figure out how to type a backwards R. Now, if IAR were IAM (Ignore All Mandates), then it would reflect as MAI, and that works. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
WAI, if you're upside down, as prophecy foretells. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
...and dyslexic. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you've heard the one about the dyslexic agnostic? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The one who lay awake wondering if there was a dog? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That would be the one. Somewhere, Henny Youngman is sending me a psychic message that my jokes are too old. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
tbh, I googled the joke for the answer so I wouldn't just have to say "What?~~~~". I know it had something to do with a dog, though :-P Xavexgoem (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, man, you cheated! But as W.C. Fields once said, "Anything worth having is worth cheating for!" The great Mr. Youngman once said that there really are no "new" jokes. For example, one day Julius Caesar needed to get to the Roman Forum in a hurry. He said to his slave, "Call me a chariot!" So the slave said, "OK. 'You're a chariot.'" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
And then hilarity really ensued! Xavexgoem (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
When Caesar would tell jokes to his slaves, he definitely had a captive audience. I saw a youtube clip recently of Youngman leveling insults at Milton Berle, and also actually playing his violin. I'm trying to think how to characterize his violin playing. Let's just say Jack Benny had nothing to worry about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
"When Caesar would tell jokes to his slaves, he definitely had a captive audience."
You win this and all following rounds :-) I'm gonna check this Youngmen guy, now. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This is the clip I was talking about:[25] Berle used to do this thing where he would station a "heckler" conveniently in a box overlooking the stage and they would trade barbs. Often he had a guy named Irving Benson, a Myron Cohen lookalike, who went by the pseudonym of "Sidney Spritzer". However, on this occasion he had Henny in the balcony. I'm sure there are other clips available of Henny doing his normal act, which was one-liners like from a machine gun. If you didn't like a joke, all you had to do was wait a few seconds for the next one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation of Monty Hall problem[edit]

Hi - If you or whatever mediator is picking up this case could relatively promptly say something about the process and, particularly, some expectation of the timing (I'm not pressing, just interested in what the expectations should be) at talk:Monty Hall problem it would be quite helpful. I'm not sure, but it seems we may be making some progress (there are a variety of proposals starting to be discussed). If the mediation process is expected to get underway soon it may be appropriate to suggest we wait (my guess is things will go much smoother with a mediator involved). On the other hand, if mediation will take quite a bit of time to really get underway (again - not pressing, just asking about expectations) it might make sense to continue trying to muddle through on our own for a while. Actually, a suggestion about this (wait or not) from a mediator would be perfect. Thank you. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It can take some time... we usually don't have a deadline or anything. MedCom has been pretty slow. I'll make a note to our list that whomever picks this up receives this particular message.
As for explaining process, I'm a little worried about doing that on the talk page. What can end up happening is folks getting bogged down by process, or folks who quit talking waiting for it to start... and you may end up missing your window. Don't stress it... just go about how you're going already :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

IP anti-muslim block.[edit]

Just noticed it doesn't seem as if you put a {{blocked}} tag on their talk page, thought I'd let you know.

It's deliberate on my part. If you think it's best, go ahead. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
No worries, I think your message is fine. I just didn't want them to come back, find themselves unable to edit, and not know why. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list[edit]

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Malik Shabazz, Xavexgoem, and Durova are authorized to act as proxies for Piotrus by editing, at his direction, the Lech Wałęsa article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to its nomination for Good Article status.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review for hip-hop dance[edit]

Hey there. I just wanted to thank you for reviewing that article. It's very long. I know reading it must have been tedious. I should be recieving my laptop in the mail soon. When I do I'll be able to spend more time on the computer rather than being on a 30 time limit (I'm at the library). I'll be able to read and respond to the changes you suggested at this time. Thanks again. Gbern3 (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter[edit]


We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Hungary Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Pennsylvania Hunter Kahn (submissions) and New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Isle of Man Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Request for Government in Exile [[26]][edit]

Hey Xavexgoem, I am sorry, but can you be more specific on why the mediation request has been rejected. I respect the decision to reject actually, but I need to know the specifics on your statement about fringe. Thanks. I am not sure if you were directed at the contribution I made and the references I provided(Stanford textbook, official government record of US secretary of state, and official congress research report -- which I doubt would be close to fringe)or the position of other editors who claimed there are sources that can prove their position but actually did not provide any. Thanks! Mafia godfather (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The argument is that the Chinese government is a government in exile. Aside from a few pieces in academia, who truly believes that the Chinese government is de jure illegitimate? If you can prove that a significant number of people believe so (and not de facto illegitimate, mind; that's another subject that I'm sure has a good deal of coverage now), then you have a case. At this point, I think you'll be more convincing if you can convince other editors that a significant portion of the world does think that the Chinese government is, by law, illegitimate. Does that make sense? If there are very few people who hold that with conviction, it's likely a fringe view. My suggestion, if you think this is persuable, is to find sources from newspapers, magazines, and what-have-you that argue that the Chinese government is in fact illegal. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, because I would think the mediators would thoroughly read through the existing discussions first already made on the subject before carrying out a decision to reject(some outside views were kind enough to go through all evidences and details before coming to the conclusion that the issue is far too complex and require non-outside view). Especially in this case the decision was base on a reason as preposterous as "fringe theory". Before I start, please take a look at the evidences mentioned in this portion of discussion. [27]], you can see there many credible sources that can validate the fact I contributed -- "ROC is a government in exile and does not own territorial sovereignty of Taiwan". Furthermore, if you do not like the "academia" from Stanford University SPICE[28], then perhaps you might be able to appreciate UN Resolution 2758, a UN general assembly decision effectively legitimized People's Republic of China and allowed it to replace Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China. The resolution further states it is expelling ROC "from the place which they UNLAWFULLY occupy at the United Nations". It was a decision made by 73 nations which is why today ROC is NOT allowed to join any state only organizations, because it is an unlawful government of China. The ROC today still claims it is the legitimate Chinese government and in fact occupies a land that does not belong to China... then it is a government in exile by all prevailing definitions including the wikipedia one --"political group that claims to be a country's legitimate government, but for various reasons is unable to exercise its legal power, and instead resides in a foreign country or foreign area. ". I would think that is a good enough fact.
Since ROC is not the legitimate government of China, and from the Charter of UN we know that decisions of general assembly have de jure basis, what other evidences, if any, can prove this fact is fringe? Were there any UN resolution that restored legitimacy of ROC? No. Whether or not people inside ROC accepts the fact should not matter, we all have facts we find hard to accept(super bowl losses, bad test scores, dumped by gf), but that does not make the facts invalid. Just because a village of people believe earth is flat does not make earth in fact flat in that very village. Does that make sense?
Also, note that I was not "arguing" ROC is a government-in-exile, I contributed it as a fact that is well referenced according to wikipedia guidelines and certainly NOT a fringe. A fact that is endorsed by a congress research report[29] and many other credible sources. One of the main arguments made by the edisputing editors is that ROC owns the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan and since Republic of China is still on Chinese territory -- that makes the ROC not a government in exile, a dubious claim that has very little merit outside of ROC. From the very first portion of talk page I sent you, you could see that notable people in history such as Walter Lippmann NY Herald Tribune and Arthur Dean who was former diplomat of US and key adviser of numerous US president(see "United States Foreign Policy and Formosa" Foreign Affairs, XXXIII(1955)), took a great deal of exception in the position held by ROC and all agreed that Taiwan was never returned to ROC and ROC was occupying a foreign land. If they do not carry any weight for you, how about John Foster Dulles in his meeting with premier of Burma? Dulles as US secretary of state and co-author of San Francisco Peace Treaty, he clearly said Taiwan was ceded to no one and US position on Taiwan is it is not an internal issue of China. States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1955-1957. China Volume II (1955-1957) . ROC as a government claiming to be rightful China on a non-Chinese land satisfies the definition of government-in-exile, which is why many reliable sources affirm that identification and the reason why i contributed the fact on the article.
I am sorry, Xavexgoem, I don't think "fringe theory" really does it for me. In fact, I believe those who disagree with this fact should be the ones supporting a fringe theory for this issue of ROC legitimacy was settled for decades. ROC is a government in exile and not a legitimate government of China, that is the position of the world and the mainstream view of the world. I have yet to see enough serious disputes from all over the world OUTSIDE of ROC that refutes the validity of UN Resolution 2758. If you have any, please do enlighten me. I undertand wikipedia policy dictates that the editing principles CANNOT be superceded by consensus of editors to prevent editor mobocracy, if I have violated any of the principles, please let me know. Thank you! Mafia godfather (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I just want to make sure that you understand we are talking about Republic of China is the government in exile here, NOT People's Republic of China. You used "Chinese government" quite profusely, and I just want to make sure you are getting the right idea and know that we are talking about the ROC and not the PRC... Also, since you mentioned that "a few pieces in academia" who believed a certain way may not be acceptable, I totally agree, and so far we have seen very little evidence from those editors who claim ROC to NOT be a government in exile except some articles written by researchers who have no significant reputation in relevant academic community. Wikipedia does not even have articles on these researchers. Whereas the evidences provided by mine were all from known figures in the academic or political community. Please review my position again. Thanks a lot. 21:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused: is there no mention of the ROC being a government in exile within the article? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC) By the way, what policy is being overridden by consensus? I figure it's NPOV? The problem with that argument ("consensus can't override policy") is that everyone has different ideas of what makes a neutral article. If it is an NPOV violation, what do you think the other editors think of NPOV?
Allow me to break it down for you and I can certainly understand your confusion for the issue at hand is extremely complex and no other editors in the past have really understood about the subject well enough to really right the wrongs these wiki editors have done. I contributed the fact to the articles government in exile and Republic of China that ROC is a government in exile along with credible and strong evidences as you can see from above. This fact is something not only affirmed by UN decision, also well known to the political world OUTSIDE of ROC. Kind of like to the rest of the world, South Ossetia is still a part of Georgia or that Republic of Molossia is still a part of the United States. I have provided enough evidences to show that, it is not the world's concensus to recognize ROC as a legitimate government of China, so it is a bona fide governemnt in exile.
Basically, these editors disagree. They feel that this is not a fact for it is "fringe", like the way you first perceived. After they have reviewed the evidences I have provided, now they are saying that it is "disputable" and cannot be considered a "fact" for most people inside ROC jurisdiction still believe or held the opinion that ROC is a legitimate country so by saying it is a government in exile in fact violates NPOV policy. My contention is that the FACT people "inside ROC" find it hard to accept this fact should have no bearing in the reality that ROC is a government in exile. Kind of like if you lost a fair bet and feel raw about it, that has NO impact on the fact you did lose. So, in this case, i am saying... "you guys lost! See all these evidences." And they are saying, "No! The evidences are bull, the fact we don't want to concede makes this result dubious and disputable!" Your comment about me providing a "fringe theory" on the mediation page once again fed them with confidence, unfortunately. I was honestly flabbergasted because it seems like you did not review the details of the subject before you made the one line comment. I understand you feel it cannot be mediated, but do reconsider adjusting your comment after you review what i have said above. Thanks.
By the way, my thing about editor consensus cannot override is if a contribution complies with ALL wiki editing principles, then editors' consensus cannot supercede it. My contribution obviously does not violate NPOV for it is a fact and not an argument/perspective(FACT is defined by wiki policy as with no serious disputes other than the disputing party -- I am sure Molossian president disagree with Obama's jurisdiction over his land, but too bad.), it also does not violate Verifiability(all my evidences are from credible 3rd party sources with reliable publishers. The evidences those editors provided are opinions written by research associates and hardly at same caliber), and certainly does not violate original research policy(the fact was clearly stated in all evidences I have provided, and I did not contribute by PROVING with my own logic outside of the context, I contributed by STATING.)Mafia godfather (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediation request failed, now I have a question[edit]

Hello. Thanks for you time. The other party disagreed on mediation, but I still face hostility on a particular page, what do you recommend I do for my next step? Good day to you, Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Brandon Hall un-protect request[edit]

I've put forward a request to un-protect Brandon Hall so that it can be converted into a disambiguation page. The request is at WP:RFPP. Your comments would be appreciated. --Labattblueboy (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the next step[edit]

Request for mediation has been rejected because the user Anandks007 with whom i having content dispute does not want to participate in a review process by a mediation committe. He has stated the reason "third party opinion should be invited" first. However as you may may see from the discussion page that such WP: 30 has already been sought and it did not resolve the dispute that is why i am resorting to mediation from a committe.

What options do i have  ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talkcontribs) 09:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your advice needed[edit]

-- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk Recommend me to start an informal mediation case in regards to this comment [30] Can you suggest a topic of mediation? Issues related to sources misuse - like here [31] – actually book say the about Krenzbach the entire story is a hoax [32] - In latter part of the war there is also no question that the OUN-B and UPA ... [33] p.161- anyway it was reverted by coeditor [34] which expressed same approach to sources usage [35] Does it possible to ask an editors to use sources fairly and not to “I don’t see a texts” at same page. Or insert text which does not exist in source itself. Thank you. Jo0doe (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

see again [36] - and compare with this text from 15:12, 5 February 2010 [37] edit - note another source - its source used in 3rd February edit few line above - namely Friedman, P. Ukrainian-Jewish Relations During the Nazi Occupation, YIVO Annual of Jewish Social Science v. 12, , 1958–59. - same as here [38] - While I guess why 4 Jews mentioned by Friedman means "many". May be you kindly advice - an editor to find an exact page [39] for "many" instead of range pp. 259–96 or may be at more recent sources - like for instance [40] Dr. Franziska Bruder - Radicalization of the Ukrainian Nationalist Policy in the context of the Holocaust p.37 - instead of "suit the case" - since it's WP - not a court. Also would be a nice to get from editor a page and source name here [41]. Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jo0doe. My recommendation for sourcing disputes is the mediation committee to help you folks out. If that fails, the mediation cabal would be my second choice. This sounds backwards, but MEDCOM is more likely to get an experienced mediator.
I can't help with sourcing disputes myself; I have little background, nor do I have access to corroborative texts. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank youJo0doe (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


I write to invite you to join others in becoming a co-mentor for me.

You may be unaware that the "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty explicitly encompasses a message on your talk page -- see User talk:Xavexgoem/archive5#Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly

Your experience in mediation will help remedy a deficit in the composition of a small group. The nascent status of a mentorship committee is clarified in the currently active thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Tang Dynasty. Hopefully, this mentorship experiment will prove to be more effective and less burdensome than previous wiki-mentoring schemes.

This is a time for hortatory concepts. Do you know this one?

"I am only one, but I am one. I can not do everything, but I can do something.
I must not fail to do the something that I can do."

If Wikiquote:Helen Keller#Misattributed is to believed, then I am not alone in linking these words with Helen Keller. The salient question becomes this: Does precise attribution matter in the context of a teachable moment? No – not always, but often.

What can I say or do to convince you to agree tentatively?

Core policies are the tools at hand; and if you agree to help connect the dots, it could benefit more than me. In this search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Your background causes me to share something already explained to another prospective mentor, "Among a prospective mentor's many burdens, the most difficult would involve (a) helping me discern why or when I should apologize or (b) helping me to explain why or when I will not apologize in a wiki-context" -- see diff. May I offer an on-topic writing sample? As you think about agreeing to join a mentorship committee, please review Patrick Lennox Tierney#Showa apology rebuffed.

Are you willing to look into this a bit further?

If you please, contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC

Damn, I'm really sorry.... I'm busy IRL. There's stuff I'm supposed to be doing on WP that I'm not as it is. I'd be a really poor mentor, since it so often means setting up sub-pages, yadayadayada. I can't do that right now. But if you need any advice, just come to my talk page. Apologies, Xavexgoem (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Xavexgoem -- I didn't reach out to you randomly in June 2009, nor now.
Sharpening the focus, I have stricken all but three sentences above; and I re-post and number them here:
1. "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty explicitly encompasses a message on your talk page -- see User talk:Xavexgoem/archive5#Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly
2. Your experience in mediation will help remedy a deficit in the composition of a small group.
3. Core policies are the tools at hand; and if you agree to help connect the dots, it could benefit more than me.
I'm pursuing your experience in consensus-building, especially as summarized in a Latin catchphrase: Qui tacet consentire videtur (He who is silent seems to agree). In my wiki-experience, you were the first to construe meaning in the formulation "silence means consent," and this has been a factor in my thinking about wiki-disagreements and dispute resolution.
If you please, perhaps you might consider reviewing the post-hoc status of tiresome "yada yada yada" at WP:A/R/C#Statement by Tenmei, especially
A. Response to Steven Smith
B. Response to Coren
C. Response to Roger Davies
If you are disinterested in a role in the cohort of ArbCom-approved "public mentors," perhaps you might be willing or able to be a non-public mentor/advisor? --Tenmei (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the latter would be fine. So long as I'm making a huge commitment. I'll take a look at those diffs...
As for silence and consensus: I'm more of a wiki-ist than an encyclopedia-ist.... this has actually hurt me considerably during mediations, as I'm often alone in this view, and it involves concepts that I'm not terribly good at explaining (yet). As a corollary to WP:SILENCE, I suggest you read meatball:WikiNow, as this hugely informed my views. Meatball wiki is an amazing resource. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Xavexgoem -- Thank you for suggesting I look into meatball:WikiNow. It will take some time to explore this new resource/venue.
In this Euler diagram, the entire field represents our Wikipedia venue; and two sub-domains are:
A = Exopedianism
B = Metapedianism
Wiki-philosophy. You have used two unfamiliar neologisms. As established at Meta-Wikipedia:Template:Philosophy, I wonder if this is what you mean?
My contributions and edit history show me as an exopedianist; or in other words, I am primarily interested in developing articles. I am only interested in non-article subjects to the extent that it affects or distracts from my focus on articles. The off-topic ArbCom "yada yada yada" or monogatari has been disruptive in the terms of my preferred exopedianist focus, but there you have it. Do you construe this section as WP:TL;DR?
Wiki-pacifism. Thank you for agreeing to participate in an on-going experiment based on these premises:
  • An initial editing strategy based on a theory of wiki-pacifism was suggested by the userpage of one of the prospective mentors, Leujohn in Hong Kong.
  • One of the non-public members of the mentorship group, Fasten in Germany, suggested that I tentatively adopt pacifist tactics as an arguably useful experiment derived from a salutary premise:
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. — Albert Einstein
In the absence of any better alternative, I agreed; but a willingness to experiment with a novel tactic represents only a superficial change -- useful as an exploratory gambit, but not transformative. I am not persuaded that pacifist action is workable even in this experimental approach, but we'll see.
As you know, the Latin axiom qui tacet consentire videtur is mirrored in WP:Silence + WP:Consensus. In our wiki-context, I would like to find a way to construe pacifist non-confrontation ≠ WP:Silence. In the slow process of resolving these seeming contradiction or dilemma, your point-of-view is likely to be important or even essential. Do you construe this section as WP:TL;DR?
Thank you. As a gesture, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people[edit]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)