This is an archive of past discussions about User:Imaglang. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I am going around trying to reduce all the redirects in Wikipedia to tidy them up. One batch of them I have found come from your Welcome notices which say welcome to Wikipedia instead of welcome to Wikipedia causing an extra redirect. Any chance you could change the template for the future. Thanks User:BozMo
Neigel you have been tricked.... is a very common name in Asia. The search on the two guys just yileds about 400 hits, and most are empy webpages. (see [1])
Hi Neigel, Since your vote for delete on this AfD, I have since cleaned up to adhere to NPOV and provided evidence of Notability. Could you please change your vote to keep?
Wow, I must congratulate you: it is very rare that someone new to WP can persuade so experience users in an AFD as you did, by making the effort of defending your article! Continue so! --Neigel von Teighen 21:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thank you Neigel! I appreciate your participation in the AfD. I found the whole thing an interesting process. It's pretty cool how much the article has changed since it was first written. I plan on expanding it soon, as well (Of course staying within NN and NPOV guidelines). Thanks, again. --Dave11:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this. I think it was worthwhile, partly to convince the other party that all the proper processes were being observed and also because the article was improved. JQ09:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.
The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.
I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [2] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights07:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Ups. You have been indefintely blocked. Then, I'll answer here: Sorry, I'm not an admin, so I can't help you. What yu could do is to ask help to an AMA advocate here, so you can run a Request for Comment (or Mediation or Arbitration) through him (for you're blocked). --Neigel von Teighen21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for nicely settling our petty revert war over the Etymology of Latino. It makes it much simpler to simply say Latino occurs in Romance Languages. Hopefully that will settle the matter. Thanks again! Cowman109Talk02:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I need help with a dispute over at the Earth Day page. I'm close to computer illiterate so the conflict resolution pages weren't much help. An individual who uses earth as a screen name is deleting facts that he doesn't like. He's also adding insulting paragraphs under the "miscellaneous" heading and the discussion page. He is an ideologue and refuses to work with others towards a resolution.
By the way, how do you pronounce your name?
Thanks, Jeff Bargholz.
Yeah Neigal, we need a third person though I have already asked for one from AMA (Bargholz insists the third person was biased however). And as you can see, there are already personal attack (ie ideologue) flying around at Talk:Earth Day done by him. You may see how he handled "resolution" with personal attack. __earth(Talk)07:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you want me as mediator (i.e. try to make you both resolve the issue, without taking party), or only as a third opinion (only give some opinions and take party)? By the way, my name is Neigel (a "germanized" form of Nigel). --Neigel von Teighen21:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Ancient Greek Wikisource
I understand from your userboxes you're interested in Ancient Greek. I've submitted a proposal to add an Ancient Greek Wikisource on Meta, and I'd be very grateful if you could assist me by either voting in Support of the proposal, or even adding your name as one of the contributors in the template. (NB: I'm posting this to a lot of people, so please reply to my talkpage or to Meta) --Nema Fakei20:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Imaglang! There is a voting at Meta for opening a Wikipedia in Quenya. Perhaps you would like to vote: here. Meanwhile, there is a test Wikipedia in Quenya started at the Incubator: here. I bet you would like to participate. :)
Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp2321:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I was very pleased at how quickly you got back to me. For refresher, the user i'm attempting to put up for RfARB has filed an RfC and an RfARB in bad faith, as well as accused several other editors of persecution and personal attacks. He has even falsely reported me to adminitrative noticeboards, and placed inappropriate warning templates on my userspace and my talkspace.
One ArbCom member has voted to reject, and his reasoning "let this dispute die" seems to be influenced by the user's constant rambling about content. The ArbCom needs to realize that i'm calling his behaviour into question. Without some sort of censure, this guy is going to (1) damage the credibility of wikipedia; and (2) frustrate other editors to the point that they probably will not wish to continue working on whatever articles he's hawking. It seems absolutely inconceivable to me that he can get away with all this -- do you have any suggestions?
This is now very difficult: we need 5 accepting votes to reach arbitration. Maybe, the best should be to contact some of your witnesses and tell them to write a brief statement on the request; that could make arbs notice that this is a serious deal. --Neigel von Teighen16:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Notices left for the witnesses regarding the urgency of their statements. I think it may come down to timing -- who posts first, ArbCom members or witnesses. In out of band contact with the ArbCom member currently commenting, he suggested trying to get a community ban from a collective group of admins. /Blaxthos17:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The two listed (and most heavily involved) witnesses have wow submitted statements. One even went back and clarified his feeling that ArbCom needs to look into this. As far as diffs, I rearranged the workspace. Any cite-needed tags means I have a diff but haven't referenced it yet. Since I have no prior experience, I have no idea how or what to prepare. What's your opinion of what I've got so far? Thanks! /Blaxthos01:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The statements are perfect; now it's time to wait what happens. On the other hand, your workspace maybe should need some more diffs; take a look on ongoing arbitration cases and you'll see that very few times the suggestion about not using too much evidence is respected. I have a question: have you tried oficial mediation or not? Normally, cases that haven't passed through Mediation Committee are likely to fail in being accepted for arbitration. --Neigel von Teighen14:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
There is plenty of evidence to cite. ;-) Mediation was bypassed because it is apparent to everyone involved (as well as those who have reviewed the case, afaik) that Cbuhl79 is not acting in good faith -- mediation fails to be effective when both parties are not actively trying to reach an acceptable goal. I believe there would be no point in anything less than some sort of official action, as every other "give and take" attempt has been abused and ignored when it did not suit the other party. I didn't want to go into overkill on the RfARB, but perhaps I should have. Is it odd that other members have no issued any kind of opinion? /Blaxthos01:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but the idea is to show a bit more evidence. About mediation: in my opinion, it is in most cases useless (in Wikipedia, I mean). About the case: it is very odd that no one responds and it seems to be the same in all requests... Maybe we should post a message on the talk page to see what's happening. --Neigel von Teighen20:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
We're up to four accept, one reject (4/1/0) on our case. All the other editors intimately involved with the case have written statements that try and explain how important it is for the ArbCom to hear the case. All we need is one more vote to accept, right? If/once it gets accepted, how much time will exist to prepare the case? How much evidence do we need to cite? Once it's "official" I am going to ask the other involved members to formally join the project. /Blaxthos18:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, it is just one more vote what we need and that's something very likely to happen. About case presentation: there is no time established, you can add and edit your case summary even if arbitrators are voting their decisions, but it is rather useless to do. The best is to use the Workshop page so you can discuss with arbitrators and state your point clearly. The case summary page is only that: a summary with the statements done during request stage. Then, we also have an Evidence page; there, please put anything you have without much explanation (these are better to be placed on the Workshop page) but try not to show twice a same situation... try to be as simple but precise as possible. When arbitraton begins, I'll write also a brief statement with my opinion about Cbuhl. --Neigel von Teighen01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I have seen that now the request's status s 4/2/0... we need 2 more votes now and there are 8 active arbitrators... This means that the two remaining arbitrators that haven't voted yet must support us. Well, these are the rules and we must accept it... --Neigel von Teighen01:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey Neigel... I'm fairly disappointed at how the arbitration turned out. I believe the validity of the system is degraded significantly when fewer than half of the ArbCom members are active. I don't plan on actively doing anything else with this case, and I think it's fine to close. However, there is strong belief that Cbuhl79 is now using a sockpuppet to advance the same agenda, and if we end up discovering that to be true I may try and re-open the case. If so, will you take it? Or do I just start the process over? In any case, it was a pleasure working with you and I sincerely appreciate your interest, guidance, and insight! /Blaxthos16:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Template:History of the Greek language should be transformed into a "Greek language family" template. This one I created seems to me to be more flexible and uses a lot of less space than the other one. Also, this is an adaptation of the template used in Latin-related articles, so both major classical languages can have a similar format (and maybe exiend this to all other classical languages like Persian, Sanskrit, etc.). What do you think about it? --Neigel von Teighen18:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I am less concerned about the questions of style in the article: Mason Welch Gross, they can be settled by a coin toss. There are very few style rules in the MoS, so most decisions are made by the two or three people editing an article. What concerns me is calling my additions to the article "vandalism" and "fucking up". He is threatening me, to get me to stop editing articles he has created, or articles he feels he owns. When he deletes the timeline, he is deleting the link to the 1920 census image that establishes Mason Gross's parents and siblings.
"Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Without implying in any fashion a sense of ownership, please stop fucking up article I've worked on by adding things that don't belong (timeline, bad form in creating two-sentence sections, etc.). I've told you before, and in this case the information you segregated as "timeline" is already in the article, and if it isn't figure a way to incorporate it in the text. How many times do I have to tell you to stop such unjustified changes. STOP renaming articles in violation of the guidelines regarding naming (common names, for one), sectioning off short one, two or three sentence sections, adding puerile or redundant "timelines" and other "fluff" that I've brought up to you before. Further reversions or edits in this regard will be reported as vandalism. —ExplorerCDT 23:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)"
OK, first let's get the diffs so we can begin to prepare the first step (almost surely a Request for Comment). If we enter a RfC, the idea is that both parties present their evidence and then other users give their support to whomever they think is right... It's the first step on Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution system (see here). At least for now, I would not recommend you an informal mediation unless he starts it. Anyway, you shouldn't scare because of those warnings; Explorer is not an administrator, so he can't block anyone. --Neigel von Teighen 00:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Message forwarded to User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) --Neigel von Teighen17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
dal'qörian deletion
Thanks Neigel, I'll certainly check out the site you suggested as it seems there is no place here for my article, the gang against me is increasing in size and tenacity! Shame though, cause in theory, Wikipedia is actually an ideal place. 23:13 1/12/06 User:Dale34
Ehm, no, Wikipedia is not the ideal place... This is an encyclopedia, you can't create articles with your own inventions. In the other hand, the sites I told you about are specialized on this topic. There, the community is devoted to conlanging and the idea is not an encycopedia but a source for conlangs. Anyway, my personal thought (as it was when I experimented creating languages) is that you need control and copyright over your articles (not GFDL as in wikis); you won't be happy if someone 'corrects' dal'qörian grammar, would you? Consider better creating a website and then listing it on the Langmaker directory... What do you say? --Neigel von Teighen19:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Certainly the sites you have spoken of are of the ideal. Creating a website is of course the main objective here..most likely a free geocities one for now. How do I go about actually creating a page or article on the langmaker..or is that purely a directory? Yeah, I kind of agree that Wikipedia may not be the ideal place, but to put it another way, I still think it has a place 'in spirit' as your colleague would say; to that I think we'll reach a stalemate. I gather (now that there is obviously a 'delete frenzy' on the go), my page will be promptly deleted shortly? Whats the proceedure here? But thanx agin for the advice, and I may return with an article 'about' invented languages. Dale34
The page will be deleted soonly, maybe in 2 or 3 days (there's no "official" policy about that). About langmaker, I don't know exactly how is working now (I was part of it before it became a wiki), but I saw both directory entries and some grammars... --Neigel von Teighen13:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow! It's great! I really like those syntactic innovations (specially on comparisons); strange, but pretty interesting. Keep conlanging! --Neigel von Teighen12:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Nobs
I think he could post to his own talk page, a mediation or an arbitration page. He needs to stay off articles, their talk pages, and other people's talk pages. He is banned until December 23 for placing extensive attacks on his user page and Talk:Chip Berlet. Fred Bauder14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you ever play around with comic or cartoonlike graphics? I have an idea that may benefit with something along those lines. More comic style-line drawing, some action and color. Anything you've done? // FrankB04:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh well, I like drawing (but I'm more a writer) but I'm really not so good on computer graphics and the result of that is the logo you see. I understand what you want, but (sadly) AMA "look" is not that, it must a bit more serious. I don't know if you saw my other logo. --Neigel von Teighen12:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank You!
Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! 8) -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
5 Stars
Thanks Neigel. Your efforts were above and beyond the call of duty. Sorry I pushed the limits. I guess my biggest vice is forcing people to think, and this offends some people. And thank you for being patient. Anything I can ever help with, let me know. nobs03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Imaglang. I am responding to your query at the Starwood Arbitration page. In my view, there are three conflicts that contributed to the Starwood Arbitration. One conflict revolves around links to the Starwood Festival. That conflict was, in my opinion, heading toward resolution prior to the arbitration. The second conflict is in my opinion based upon residual feelings related to the sockpuppetry case against Mattisse. It is my opinion that there has been a disproportionate response to the sockpuppetry case. I believe it is disproportionate because Mattisse has disengaged from the underlying conflicts, but a number of editors have been pursuing Mattisse with virtually no breaks for months, despite Mattisse's disengagement. The third conflict was a rather intense interaction between Hanuman Das and Paul Pigman. I believe this interaction precipitated the filing of the arbcom case, which might have not been filed otherwise. However, the arbcom case might not have been filed merely on the basis of this precipiating factor if the other factors were not also present.
Although Hanuman Das was a signifcant factor in the ArbCom case being filed, he soon afterward "retired". A number of new accounts appeared on the scene which seemed to pursue some of the interests of Hanuman Das not long before or after Hanuman Das retired. Additionally, Hanuman Das had at one point stated an intention to use sockpuppets. I think it was justifiable to be concerned that the retirement of the Hanuman Das account might not mean the retirement of the individual behind that account.
I hope this helps a little to clarify the ArbCom case. I'd be happy to give further clarifications of how I see the ArbCom case if tht would be helpful to you. Sincerely, --BostonMAtalk19:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on the Starwood Arbitration. Your comments have been insightful and balanced, sorely needed qualities in this affair. I also think it's good that you are Jefferson Anderson's advocate. I think BostonMA's synopsis above is a fairly accurate description of interactions, including the impetus for my filing the arbcom case. Perhaps it isn't clear that Frater Xyzzysaid999 (who is/was a party to the initial arbcom request) asked him to look in on the Starwood case. Since Frater Xyzzy also apparently asked Jefferson Anderson to look at things (they worked together), I think it's understandable that his actions around these matters appeared, um, problematic to some people, including myself. This is not intended to throw aspersions on JA, but merely to point out connections I saw initially. (I say this disclaimer because some people apparently interpret this sort of comment as harassment or an attack, to my great puzzlement. I'd greatly appreciate feedback if you think this is out of line or inappropriate as well.)
I hope you continue to advocate on Jefferson Anderson's behalf. I would like nothing more than to have this dismal maelstrom wind up and I'm sorry that it's become so entangled with what I believe are personal issues unrelated to the core policy violations at the center of the case. Again, thank you for your comments. --Pigmantalk • contribs15:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me if I beg to differ. Clarity and freshness of focus are refreshing in this case. I do not say that to sweet-talk you or boost your ego. I mean it. This case, in varying aspects, venues and personalities, has been going on since August 2006. I won't speak for others but I know I'm looking forward to a day when it is not a major part of my Wikipedia work. I'm a firm believer in politeness and respect between editors and it dismays me immensely to bring actions such as the arbitration or to detail the behaviour of other editors. Your input is welcomed by me. I'm sure you will do what you think right as JA's advocate. It just makes me absurdly happy when someone I perceive as being basically neutral on the issues weighs in, even as advocate for someone with whom I've had strong disagreements.
Um, I hope I haven't been unduly confessional here. Nor am I encouraging you to involve yourself more than you wish to be or as you see necessary as JA's advocate. I've found this to be a wearying and time-consuming situation. I find it difficult to council anyone to jump into it. --Pigmantalk • contribs17:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, no. The case is a mess and no one knows what they want from the arbitration. I have already recommended someone privatey to search an advocate because this user didn't knew what was happening in the case. Then, there's no clarity whether JA is or not a party, no one is writing proposals for findings of facts and mostly are discussing motions and requests. Maybe you know what you want, I spoke in general according to my impression as someone that came from outside and have actively participated in other arbitrations. There are some that try, at least so it seems to me, to fight for everything because they fear to lose in a little detail in the process; whether Matisse has to write or not a statement, whether the CkeckUser has to be maid upon a list of 10 or 11 users... and then arrive people that believe that they must discuss anything and don't remain focused on requesting what they really need. That's my point: the most parties are fighting in all battlefronts (figurated, of course) instead of deciding which is the best scenario and "fight" there. --Neigel von Teighen18:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think your perceptions are accurate. Unfortunately, I've also felt myself drawn in, shall we say, unproductive and broadly divergent directions during this arbitration. What should be a relatively narrow and specific discussion about policy application and some directly related behavioral problems has blossomed into a nasty and often unnecessarily strategic and complex morass. I wish I could say I've acted in a calm and exemplary manner completely above reproach at all times but irritability and snappish responses have occurred on my part. I've become befuddled by other people's actions and statements, leading to ill-focus on my part as well. I admit I'm somewhat at a loss for exactly what proposals for findings of fact should even be put forward. Once I finished my presentation of evidence, it wasn't entirely obvious to me what should happen on the workshop page. And once a sort of tit-for-tat dynamic started with motions, it appears difficult for people to break out of it. I'm of the opinion that the initial CheckUser motion set the tone for the following motions. I'm still exceptionally bemused about being accused of harassing and attacking JA for what I thought were rather mild statements of explanation. Um. I don't want to draw you into a discussion on that subject considering you're his advocate. My apologies for bringing it up.
Once again I seem to have gotten all confidential on you. Still, your thoughts have been helpful to me in indicating and clarifying my priorities for this arbitration and I thank you for it. I've tried to be general and non-specific in my discussion here because I have no wish to impose my biases on you. I hope you don't mind that I've done a little thinking on the subject on your talk page. Again, thank you. --Pigmantalk • contribs20:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
If anything goes right and all of you begin to think a little like the ones that have answered me, this will be very fast and productive. --Neigel von Teighen17:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
More Starwood Stuff
Hello to you. I hope my rather wordy responses to your inquiries on the Starwood arbitration pages have given you an idea of where I stand. I'd like to state that I have NEVER during all this affair called for a sanction, block or punishment for anyone's behavior, just a plea for it to stop. I also have never touched the articles Pigman & Co. created and/or regularly edit, or stalk their work like they do mine, or call for mediations or arbitrations on them. I can't STAND all this talk about "personal attacks" and "racial slurs"; I don't think that much of any of it is merited, it's just being used to garner support, and I find it appalling when someone acts like they've been damaged when they have not.
As I've said, all I want is to be able to make contributions to Wikipedia. I think the Starwood article is pretty good as it is, and the three involved people who adamantly oppose it are not being objective and have as much POV and COI issues as I do. In any event, I have done a great deal of work trying to supply sources to satisfy them, and eliminated the most questionable material, but they do nothing in return and ignore all improvements. They also won't offer any set criteria for me to try to comply to (except the ones they subsequently ignore my compliance with), or discuss individual articles. Etc, etc.. you can find it all on the pages.
I hope, at least, my response delineates some clear objectives from my point of view. Pigman has said most or all of what I've done should be taken down, and I have no reason to believe that he, Kathryn, or Weniwediwiki have moved a bit from that position. Rosencomet22:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, Ok; my suggestion were done to make people react and begin to take this in a more adult or mature way. It's the only way to make this better for everyone; those who don't want to do it and persist harrasing and making this a nasty case will fall, but it is very necessary to let arbitrators have a clear image on who is who. If the case remains a mess, then, as I said, there can be misunderstandings that may cost. And, because of my more-seriousness request, is that I would like to see JA out of the parties as Checkuser has demonstrated that he is not a sockpuppet of anyone. --Neigel von Teighen17:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
AMA
AMA is, at root, a good idea. As a way of helping confused newbies or people who are having great trouble understanding Wikipedia, or to help people who have been blocked and need their case presented neutrally, it has obvious merit. It also falls badly flat very often, because the word "advocate" tends to be misinterpreted as fighting the user's corner. A good lawyer will gently but firmly tell a prospective client that their case is hopeless.
The advocate for nobs01 ended up completely blowing it. Nobs was almost back, and people were content to see that, but the advocate's statement was aggressive, and appeared to be challenging the original ban (which I don't think nobs wanted, he just wanted to come back a few eeeks early, supported by several on the mailing list). End result: nobs is now banned for another year. Bad result.
The advocate for Rfwoolf has failed (not through any lack of trying) to get Rfwoolf to accept that the problem is not everybody else. The result is that Woolf has escalatred and spread the dispute to the point where a lot of admins are going to ber watching and waiting for him to put a foot wrong, so they can kick him out.
The advocate for Mugaliens has done nothing whatsoever, leaving the AMA page as a place for Mugs to spit in the soup and pursue his eccentric agenda, instead of persuading him to drop the weird shot about skirts for men and conentrate on aviation subjects.
Thanks for your comments. There is plenty to read, but a fairly clear picture is emerging. I can see what Mattisse was doing, and why she was doing it. I am not condoning what she has done, but I understand her motivation. Was she right or wrong in her convictions? These are grey areas, which only become clear through honest, respectful discussion. I am hopeful that is what will happen. Most people involved seem quite happy to talk. SilkTork01:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for you proposal at the New AMA Teams(AMAT). Your initiative, leadership, and participation are greatly welcomed. As interim coordinator of the AMAT I highly endorse your efforts and I wish you best of luck in recruiting good wikipedians within the proposed AMAT called:
The Arbitration Team. I trust you will lead a good team and I believe such an AMAT has potential for high growth giving this team the potential for good experience advocacy and making wikipedia a better place. Yours trully, --CyclePat19:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The case was originally filed based on the actions of editors involved in the Starwood links issue. A second issue involving a dispute at Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism was added in the evidence phase in the belief that it was a continuation of the same alleged harassment. However, the two cases have very little overlap. Arbitrator Fred Bauder [3] has decided to consider only the Starwood matter at this time. I have trimmed the workshop page to remove material related to the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism matter. That matter may be placed before the arbitration committee at any time by filing a separate request for arbitration. If the case is accepted, evidence and analysis may be copied from the page history and used there. Thank you. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher13101:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The bad news is that while I was analyzing the case I became convinced that Frater and Anderson are the same editor. It may not be proveable in a court, but the evidence is much stronger than is normally required on Wikipedia. The good news is that, except for the sockpuppetry (both accounts editing several AfDs and the Celtic Paganism article), the edits were (in my unofficial opinion) more or less reasonable as to questioning the appropriateness of the CR Faq as a source. Thatcher13101:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hurra! But we need some more people. The "marketing" campaign is not over yet. At least five members and then we can begin coordinate things more properly. --Neigel von Teighen11:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Gordian knot time. :-) I recently received a distressing email from Mattisse about how she feels that she was snubbed by three Advocates in her request for help on the Starwood case. Peeking at her Advocacy page I noticed that you're helping represent User:Jefferson Anderson, and I would like to compare notes and collaborate to ensure that this case is dealt with properly. I'm currently waiting for Mattisse to provide me with more information, but anything you can give me in the meantime would be more than helpful. Thanks! אמרSteve Caruso(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership!16:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi - it has come to our notice that you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, on the template page for new Wikiprojects and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies, and whether better use could be made of a WikiProject-specific talk page template.
In the case of your new stub type, there is no indication that it would reach the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why this stub type should not be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness...wha?01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
