User talk:Ideogram/Archive 6

Active discussions

Re: AQu01riusEdit

Well, he's being bold, I suppose. You should be more precise in stating your objections, though; I think he's open to discussion on specific points, but reqiring that all changes be discussed beforehand isn't usually done except in cases that have already degenerated into substantial edit-warring.

(And keep in mind that it's only edit-warring if changes are undone repeatedly. It's quite appropriate—and even expected—that you'll occasionally revert edits that you don't agree with.) Kirill Lokshin 18:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If I start reverting I guarantee you he will revert me back. Why am I forced to start an edit war to get him to listen to me? --Ideogram 18:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, if he reverts back, then he is edit-warring; but I suspect that he won't. Kirill Lokshin 18:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
What did I tell you? --Ideogram 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
That, when choosing things to revert, you shouldn't go for the most politically sensitive one? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't tell which changes are most important to him. The color is actually the least important change to me. --Ideogram 18:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
In cases like this, Kim Bruning's bold-revert-discuss approach seems to work fairly well, for what it's worth. Kirill Lokshin 18:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
No, he was bold, I tried to discuss, now I'm being bold, and we are both reverting. This is leading to an edit war, exactly what I predicted. --Ideogram 18:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of your changes will stick; some won't. The ones that don't are the ones that need to be discussed further. Kirill Lokshin 19:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, apparently he is leaving some things alone. This might actually work. --Ideogram 19:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

IssuesEdit

Hello :)

First of all, your comments in Portal talk:China#Civility gave an impression of "I did this, and this. I was here before you, so I am better than you.", which is very immature, and I suggest you to cool down and think about it. Also, take a quick peak at Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Now, I'll clarify some of your concerns regarding me. Note that Wikipedia is not a battleground, so I would like both of us to forget about all those issues, and work on Portal:China to get it featured (which is currently my primary focus).

"You're a little high school punk"

Is that relevant?

"new to Wikipedia, and . Read WP:CIVIL. I have had it up to here with your attitude"

New? Um.

User:AQu01rius: earliest edit: 20:35, 19 March 2006

User:Ideogram: earliest edit: 20:34, 26 May 2006

How long have we been here is completely irrelevant. For WP:CIVIL, I could not found any criteria I have violated, except for rudeness. I have been bold, yes, but rudeness? If your talking about "editing your work without your talking to you first", I explained, and apologized for that.

However, for your comments in Portal talk:China, you have violated the following criterias of WP:CIVIL:

  • Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another, "goddammned newbie"
  • Judgmental tone in edit summaries, "You have a lot to learn"
  • Personal attacks, "Highschool punk, goddammned newbie"

But again, let's forget about all those and spend more time on improving articles. Thank you, and have a nice day =) AQu01rius (User • Talk) 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to work in an atmosphere of mutual respect. You seem to enjoy making disrespectful comments, perhaps you think that by making me angry enough to leave you will get your way. --Ideogram 20:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted page "Portal:People's Republic of China (new)"Edit

A page you created, or image you uploaded, Portal:People's Republic of China (new), has been deleted in accordance with our deletion policy. In particular, it meets the one or more criteria for speedy deletion; the relevant criterion is:

Test pages (e.g., "Can I really create a page here?").

Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable notability guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content; it will be deleted again and may be protected from re-creation. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article. If you have any questions, please contact an administrator for assistance. Thank you – Gurch 04:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This place gets weirder every day. --Ideogram 11:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

read my talk. --JakeLM 09:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

happy Turkey-Day!!!!Edit

 
  I wish you a very merry Thanksgiving! Hope you and your family have a magnificent day! So, what are you thankful for? Hooray and happy gormandiziŋ! --Randfan please talk talk to me!
 
Happy Turkeyday! Cheers! :)Randfan!!
Have a great day! Please respond on my talk page (the red "fan" link in my signature). Cheers! :)Randfan!!
What does your name mean? Cheers! :)Randfan!! 17:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

ChinaEdit

I do not think that putting the words de-facto and de-jure are pro-PRC at all! The United Nations, US, and most countries in the world agree with the 'One China' principle - even those who only recognize the ROC agree that there is only one China.

Therefore, those who recognize the PRC recognize that the whole of China is under the PRC. Those who recognize the ROC think that the whole of China is under the ROC. Therefore, by putting 'two modern states' who not be pro-PRC, in fact it would be rather factual and neutral. It cannot offend both pro-PRC people and pro-ROC people!

I think that only by using de-facto and de-jure terms can one truly understand the current government in China Ghfj007 18:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't put this here. Put it on Talk:China. --Ideogram 18:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

MediationEdit

Hi,

I guess I missed the original posting on the mediation page, I just noticed it now. E-mail or talk pages are preferred between myself and Mystar as the issues extend over multiple pages, I'd rather not clutter up talk pages. WLU 00:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo of Chuck MooreEdit

Hi. I just uploaded commons:Image:ChuckMoore.jpg, and I wonder if you still have the original authorization, and if you could send it to the commons people, so the image won't risk to be deleted. TIA. Greetings. --es:Usuario:Angus 19:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I temporarily unprotected your page so Angus could leave a message. Just forward that email to permissions-commons (a) wikimedia.org. Thanks. Bastiqe demandez 19:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

New Mediator?Edit

Hi, I noticed that you changed the status of the Muhammad Mediation page. It is unclear to me why you made the change. Could you explain please. Thanks. --BostonMA talk 14:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Explain to me, too, please, since I'm the mediator. --Ars Scriptor 14:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (formerly Aguerriero)
Sorry, I asked on the talk page if the mediation was still active, and I didn't realize from the responses that the mediator was still active. I also examined the history of Talk:Muhammad/Mediation and was confused by the fact that Aguerriero didn't show up. I suggest you change the mediator name listing on the Case page to your current username. --Ideogram 20:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: MedCabEdit

Ya, sure thing, I'll go take a look at the caseload right now, I hadn't checked the list in a while, otherwise I would have picked something up had I known it was so bad. Cheers. Canadian-Bacon 18:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation caseEdit

I think they banned him if i recall so go ahead and close it down. // Tecmobowl 19:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: MedCabalEdit

I'm sorry, but I'm just not able to be on Wikipedia enough to mediate a case. I should've marked myself as inactive, but I simply forgot to. Apologies. --digital_me 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no Cabal!Edit

I haven't ever had a case, and when I signed up ages ago I didn't get any help, so you'll have to walk me through a mediation before I can go and mediate the world. If you're willing, so am I. :)

Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.

The Duke of Ideogram 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Chess FAREdit

Now that the two-week review period is ending, can you let us know if your concerns have been addressed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chess? Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 14:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediator NeededEdit

Hello, Ideogram, Addhoc mentioned you as someone who might be able to help out with a case. The case is stalled as the mediator never showed and has now been removed from the case. A new mediator has been requested, but no one has volunteered. The editors who work on the many articles affected by the case are frustrated and unusure how to proceed.

This is the case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival

And this is the discussion some of us had about it on Addhoc's talk page: User_talk:Addhoc/Archive6#Difficult_Mediation_needs_new_Mediator

Thank you for your consideration. --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am sorry, but I am actually not a good mediator. It is very unfortunate how your case has been handled, but as an informal organization we have no control over our mediators. At this point I would recommend you look at WP:MEDCOM or WP:RFAR. If you have any questions about those I will be happy to help you with the process, unfortunately both options will take some time. Hope that helps. --Ideogram 01:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: MediationEdit

Holy ::insert word here::, I forgot about that. I can continue, if you want. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, will do. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR blockEdit

I've blocked you for 3RRV on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Geogre. Since you an otherwise good contributor I have only blocked you for 3 hours but you should be happy I didn't make the block longer. It is unacceptable to blatantly violate 3RR while you are warning other people about it. JoshuaZ 04:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I had come here to warn of the same. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
SV, as someone close to Geogre who has already voted for him, you would do best to stay out of this affair. --Ideogram 04:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
In reference to your email inquiring "Please explain to me how adding new material three times qualifies for a 3RR block"- where I saw 3RR- the relevant difs are [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. And yes, I know that they aren't literaly reversions the clear intent was to add back substantially the same content after it was removed. Whether or not threaded content should be allowed and what sort of threaded content is a matter for general discussion not for you to edit war at. If you prefer you can think of it as a block for general edit warring and arguably gaming 3RR rather than 3RR itself. JoshuaZ 04:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I can understand that, but I would have appreciated a warning that I was misinterpreting the rules. I also think it would be nice if you blocked the other people for edit-warring with me. I am perfectly capable of having a reasonable discussion about what comments are allowed on that page, but the people opposing me clearly are biased in favor of allowing Geogre to do what he wants while accusing me of trolling. As long as they outnumber me they can simply revert all my comments off the page and I can do nothing. How do you propose I deal with this situation? --Ideogram 04:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest you go to one of the general pages for discussion arbitration elections and bring up the issue there of what sort of threading is acceptable. JoshuaZ 04:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I can do that, but I am more concerned with the general case of an unpopular opinion being denied the right to speak simply because it is outnumbered. This kind of tag-team reverting has happened to me before, and I see it as mob rule, pure and simple. Perhaps I was "gaming the system" but I saw no alternative to dealing with a situation where I feel the mob is wrong. Do you have an opinion on how to deal with this? --Ideogram 04:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know quite what to say. But I would like to point out that in article space when someone is blocked for 3RR many respond by making similar assertions- that letting the group revert more than 3 times somehow creates a mob rule or a similar problem. When one has such an issue more often than not it is because the group is correct or is behaving with some logic. I would therefore strongly suggest bringing the topic up for discussion where it will get a larger number of people looking at it and will hopefully result in some sort of clear decision. JoshuaZ 05:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I will do that. --Ideogram 12:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

An update is here. Carcharoth 15:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer Carcharoth, but I don't think it's possible for me to have a productive conversation with Ghirla. --Ideogram 01:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

CSICOP mediationEdit

Ideaogram, just a quick note to say thank you for closing the CSICOP mediation case back in early November. I was the mediator on that but for various reasons my WP activity dropped to zero for a while after the case ended, and I never got around to closing it on the cabal page. Thanks, and sorry I dropped the ball on this. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no need to apologize. We always appreciate your help, and I hope you won't hesitate to help again in the future. --Ideogram 01:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requestedEdit

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:RFAREdit

Thank you for the offer. It is something I have been considering for, well, years, now. There are three reasons why I am still hesitating: 1) it's a waste of time I could be putting into content creation (although stress generated by offensive remarks and disruptive edits by Ghirla is increasingly making me wonder what is the less of two evils) 2) Ghirla, despite being very opinionated and often extremly offensive, is a content creator even more active than myself - I don't want to see him blocked, just reformed (Wikipedia does benefit immensly from his articles on Russian architecture) 3) which brings me to 'what solution could ArbCom' offer other then blocking him? I am considering something along the lines 'users are allowed to revert Ghirla without concern for 3RR and remove his offending posts from talk, also his edits with offending summaries can be deleted by admins from page history' - but I don't know if it is something ArbCom would consider? Out of curiosity: what can 'come out' of RfC? Based on my experience, RfC don't do anything - some users air their greviances, other support some statements, and that's it - they are only good to use later to back up some statements if a majority has supported a given side, but even through for example at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo most users agreed he was incivil, I didn't notice any effect it had on the situation - other then many hours of many editors were wasted in the discussions on that page.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I also don't know what ArbCom can do. I thought the last RFAR was warning enough, but apparently not.
I think you are the user who has dealt with and has to deal with Ghirla the most. If any RFAR is to be filed, it is up to you. I think Cowman erred in filing his RFAR against Ghirla without consulting with you. Ultimately the decision as to whether Ghirla's contributions are worth the headaches is your decision, since most of the headaches are yours. The rest of us can pretty much avoid Ghirla most of the time.
I cannot give you much guidance in this decision, as I am still new to Wikipedia. I suggest you consult with other people you respect who are experienced in the ways of ArbCom. --Ideogram 19:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I certainly don't plan to do more reverts, but deleting another party's outside view in RfC is really little more then vandalism (it would be clear vandalism but he at least copied your post to talk), and his comment about trolling is certainly WP:PAIN level (in my book, at least). If he removes it again - well, I guess we can wait and to see how other react to such censorship. Although I have to say his edit proves your point perfectly :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC) PS. Thanks one again for commenting on my RfC. If you agree with my view, you may want to endorse my reply.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I have said all I want to on the RFC. --Ideogram 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:STALKEdit

Ideogram, why do you instantly pop up on pages where my name is being slandered? I would appreciate if you would stop following my edits. I repeat for the umpteenth time that I don't have a grudge against you personally and have no ambition to take any action against you if you leave me alone. Please edit in peace. Best, Ghirla -трёп- 09:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This, of course, is why you mentioned me in your ArbCom election votes. --Ideogram 11:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Questions for Paul AugustEdit

Hi Ideogram. I've answered Cyde Weys' questions. Regards, Paul August 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Merry Winterval(s)!!!! (12-22-06)Edit

 
Oh, the weather outside is frightful!... But I hope wherever you you are, that it's warm and delightful! : )Randfan!!


Dear Ideogram/Archive 6,


I wish you a very, very merry Winterval!

And since I don't know which you celebrate, I hope you have/had/will have a very happy Holiday!. Hope you and your family have a magnificent day, or series of days! You might wanna install the "SaucyMillionaire" font to see this correctly. Cheers, mate!:)Randfan!!

God (or your deity/deities) bless you and your family! —¡Randfan!Sign here? 02:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


-I was planning to hand these out on the 22nd of Dec. but things got in the way.... Happy holidays! —¡Randfan!Sign here? 20:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A UserboxEdit

I've made a userbox you might like, given your name and all.

IdeoThis user uses an ideographic system of writing.

--Whytecypress 21:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC) {{User:Whytecypress/UserboxIdeographic}}


Could you help with some research?Edit

Hello Ideogram,

I'm currently in the middle of a PhD at the University of Bath, UK. I'm examining the way that mediation differs between face-to-face, video-conferenced and text-based meetings. You can get a gist of the research from my (somewhat sparse) homepage here.

I've been trawling through the MediationCabal archives and have noticed that you've mediated in number of cases. Would you be willing to spare some time to talk to me about your experiences mediating? It'd help me out no end!

If you'd like some more info, you can leave a message on my talkpage or contact me via the e-mail on my homepage.

Many thanks

Matt
MattB2 12:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Faith in WikipediaEdit

I just wanted to thank you for coming to my class' rescue on the Hitler Mediation Cabal page. After being attacked (falsely) as sockpuppets, I was feeling really down on Wikipedia. Okay, sure, six people randomly appearing on a mediation page was probably more confusing and unhelpful than not, but the reaction to our appearance still made me feel like, "Oh, okay, this 'anyone can contribute' thing isn't really true, if you're not following rules that only really in-the-know folk are aware of." It was only when having to write up the experience that I went back to the page, and noticed your "be nice to the newbies" comment. Anyway, thanks for restoring my faith in Wikipedia. JaneDoe17 19:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

911Template Mediation IssueEdit

I noticed that you closed the case for Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-23 911 Template Issue[6]. For awhile they had stopped posting the template but then another user created a new template and now the issue is front and center again since this user insists on posting the template to Jim Hoffman's page over and over, even as it is up for deletion. I expect that the template will not be deleted, as it contains a link to a humiliating attack on the "conspiracy theories" (via a Southpark episode) and so is being promoted by those who openly admit to their revulsion for anyone who questions the official version of events on 9/11. Given this likely outcome, the war of placing this template mixing attacks with promoters onto Hoffman's page will likely continue. Hoffman works to expose errors within the 9/11 research community and poorly researched or fallacious arguments against the community by those defending the official story. The template generally mixes all of these together with the major promoters of the theories, which means that the same work Hoffman works to expose the flaws in is being promoted openly on his BIO page. Sorry that my time is spotty on here - I have a day job. bov 19:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

EDOEdit

The people who posted the bizarre information have not engaged in the talk page for EDO Corporation. At this time, it is my opinion that mediation is not necessary. As for the talk page, what recommendations do you have for the now lengthly page filled with the exact information that was once located in the article? Any other feedback for this and similar topic articles? Seafront 17:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Irpen revisions on Wikipedia:What is a trollEdit

Those aren't talk page comments; you're editing a Wikipedia policy document there (essay-marked, but still a policy document), and you should expect no right to make changes unilaterally.

I will defend you if your talk page or other comments get deleted - this is not the same, and please don't waste my time. Georgewilliamherbert 19:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please take it up on the article talk page. That's the proper place for discussions for any controversial changes. The changes are clearly controversial, because after you made them, someone reverted them, multiple times. Take it there and see what happens. Georgewilliamherbert 19:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I am trying. --Ideogram 19:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Bright line violations... and the restEdit

Please be aware that three reverts are not a "right" and the existence of a clear demarcation does not preclude you being blocked somewhere short of crossing it. To be more explicit, if I again observe you "using up" three reverts I'll block you for disruption. - brenneman 06:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you given the same warning to Irpen? --Ideogram 06:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Please cease disruption be rewriting large sections of a policy page unilaterally against consensus. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
To anyone reading: I had no intention of editing the page in question again. I had already started a discussion on the talk page and hoped to continue. Now I have been blocked from all articles, a block that was imposed without my having edited anything after the above warning.
If it is at all possible, I would like to request that I only be blocked from the page in question, so that I can continue discussion on the talk page and elsewhere. --Ideogram 06:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Ugh. I normally never lift a block without discussion, but I'll do it now with the caveat that anyone can reblock without talking to me...
brenneman 11:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I've left a note at User_talk:Blnguyen#User_talk:Ideogram.23Bright_line_violations..._and_the_rest saying I've unblocked. But please do tread lightly. While I agree whole-heartedly with
  • Your contention that once a person is labled *shudder* as a troll there is little argument that they can offer and
  • While I think that such nomenclature should be avoided at all costs,
forgive me if I say you've got a knack for raising hackles. Your comments, however well intentioned, often raise the level of tension rather than lowering it. As to what articles you can edit, speaking for myself only edit whatever you want, but with some slightly higher level of co-operation.
brenneman 11:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I do remember our previous conversation and I believe you have my best interests at heart. This of course is not the place to talk about my opinions. I will definitely be more careful in the future. --Ideogram 00:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, if I could trouble you again, my IP address is still autoblocked. --Ideogram 00:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It is ok now. --Ideogram 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Commentary on current eventsEdit

Hi... I realise we've never interacted, so please forgive me for butting in!!!! But I think I ought to suggest that maybe you might want to try to be as collegial as possible, even if you feel you yourself are being provoked. It's not easy. I can personally attest to that, because I have unfortunately let myself be goaded into saying things I later regretted, things which ended up derailing important matters with side issues. It's often a good policy if you have points you are trying to make. On the AN, you said I have been advised by several people I trust now that I have indeed crossed the line. I will be more civil in the future. --Ideogram 00:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC) ... I think that's good advice to yourself and you ought to keep it in mind if you possibly can. Again forgive the intrusion, but if there are substantive points to be made, it is best if they don't get overlooked by people focusing on the behaviour of the messenger. ++Lar: t/c 19:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your gentle advice. All I can say is it is hard to talk to someone who keeps trying to prove you are a troll. --Ideogram 19:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation CabalEdit

Thank you for the invitation to take on a case at the Cabal. Unfortunately, I'm focusing my efforts elsewhere these days - primarily at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and on a comprehensive index to Wikipedia for the use of editors. I think those two, plus answering questions on several different help pages and commenting on proposed changes to policies and guidelines, is where my time is most productively used. I wish you the best of luck at the Cabal; I do suggest, however, that you might consider a change in process - if you can't get to a request within a reasonable time (a week?), give the requestor some feedback (expected date you can get to it?) and suggest alternatives. People don't mind delays so much as they mind being kept in the dark about delays. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 13:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Leave Giano aloneEdit

I do not care about your dispute. I do not have any history with you. As a completely uninvolved admin, it is my analysis that you are both behaving like children and you need to stop it. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. With any luck, the affair is now over. --Ideogram 05:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/JJayEdit

Thanks for the input on the talk page, I've made it a bot more "normal" following a small dust-up over me not sticking to convention. If you think it's still confusing, please let me know. - brenneman 07:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Solar SystemEdit

Hello... I saw your copy edits at Solar System - thanks for helping out. FYI, the section you commented on (re: layout) evolved some time back as a means of warding off repeated references to "Bode's Law" (and other "theories" about planetary spacing.) Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 07:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of sockpuppetryEdit

Hi! I just saw that you are following the (possible) evolution of the Mediation Cabal on the foie gras controversy. I'm not intending to involve in this controversy, but it has to be said in the Mediation Cabal page that the sockpuppetry accusation against Olivierd, Zelig33 and me has been rejected and that not only we have been unblocked, but we have been recognized as three different persons: see unblock of Benio76 and dissolving sockpuppetry. Since there has been neither vandalism nor voting irregularities from the three of us, it has been recognized that the very checkuser request was injustified (see here). Both if the mediation is going on or not, I ask you please to clarify all this on the page, because I did important contributions and don't want them to count for nothing just because of a false accusation. Many thanks, Benio76 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Ideogram/Archive 6".