User talk:Ramsquire/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Request for Mediation
|
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus 2.
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
|
Your case for Mediation from the Mediation Committee has been accepted. Your re-agreement is required at the case page under Request for Mediation; prompt action on your behalf would be appreciated in order to commence the mediation as soon as possible.
If you have any questions about my contributions, personal mediation style or otherwise, please contact me at my talk page, or email me at anthony (dot) cfc (at) gmail (dot) com - all email communication is private unless stated otherwise.
Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Skypad
{{{{ Hello}}}}
Thank you for your greeting. I got a nasty NPOV on my discussion page by someone who seems to have a personal bias. I don't want to get into a flame war but how should I deal with a person who is trying to be difficult?Skypad 18:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever you do, don't get into a flame war. It's the quickest way you can be indefinitely blocked from contributing. There are guidelines at WP:CIVIL you can follow. Another interesting page to check out is WP:TE to see if you are indirectly or directly instigating bad faith on the article pages. Good luck, and remember WP:NPOV and WP:V are the only requirements to editing. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- As a side note, the "nasty NPOV" was the lowest-level warning template (comment2). Also, before you assume too much good faith, check out the diffs I just added to TALK:Fox News Channel. /Blaxthos 18:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- The debate roars on and I'm about to remove this page from my watchlist. This argument started over three months ago (Oct. 3, '06) and I cannot continue to explain the same points over and over again to people making the same arguments over and over again. Now, somebody is stating that our belief that consensus was reached is "laughable" and "silly". Three months of discussion...laughable. If you'd still like to comment, you know where the talk page is, but I'm done. AuburnPilottalk 19:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
|
|
The Request for Mediation, WP:RfM/Jews for Jesus 2, has been accepted and mediation is now open. You are invited to participate in accordance with the mediator's instructions at the case talk page. |
Good morning (GMT time); thanks for registering your opinion concerning the proposed refrain from editing of Jews for Jesus - your participation is received with thanks. Can I just invite you to make your statement at the Case Talk Page regarding the dispute, as all users have been invited. More information can be found there.
Kindest regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Intro 2 Fox
You are correct! What any of us 'feel' is irrelevant. I make every decision every day based on logic, reason, common sense, and available information. My motto is 'feelings do not make facts'. None of my objections are based on 'feelings' it is based on the truth. I want to leave the mention of bias in the intro since it is so 'important' to some. What is fair would also be an edit which I recommended, but was immediately reverted.
Fox News has been criticized as advocating conservative political positions. [3] This same study discloses that only 7% of national and 12% of local journalists used in the survey described themselves as Conservative. The channel denies allegations of bias in their news reporting.
This is what appears in the source in the few paragraphs leading up to the articles 'conclusion'. This is not OR. It is what the article says. This information is relevant to the statement in question, and should not be censored. Reverting my recommended edit suggests a blatant attempt to insert POV w/no intentions allowing balance. Unlike the truth, emotions lie. Thank you for looking out! (OfForByThePeople 01:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC))
- Make your suggestions on the talk page and see if there is a consensus for it. I am sorry if it appears I am being short with you but I am soooooooooooooo tired of this discussion and the fact that it doesn't seem to end.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
JfJ mediation
I do understand your concerns, especially the lack of participation. It seems, though, that MPerel has just kind of vanished, and apparently Jayjg has already contacted people to explain his situation and position. As to the intransigence-if this wasn't a tough one to get agreement on, we'd likely be in no need of a mediator! All the same, though, I think if we got to a compromise that even everyone except one person could agree on, I think we'd have come a long way-that type of agreement probably would be considered to represent a clear consensus, even if not a unanimous one. Seraphimblade 01:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Tippit Article
Hi, just wanted to let you know that I am working of a total overhaul of the article on J.D. Tippit. The article is plain awful as it stands. I intende to lay out in detail all the evidence against Oswald, and all the criticism of the WC's case as well. I welcome your thoughts of course. Joegoodfriend 21:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good, I'll check in from time to time. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Overhaul complete. Hope you like it. Joegoodfriend 23:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
your Barnstar
I realize we definitely had our disagreements on the Ann Coulter talk page, but you've certainly got my respect for consistently staying on topic, making substantive points, and working to improve the article. Accordingly, here's a barnstar (if you want it) for you to arrange however you want on your main or talk page. Best of luck and happy editing. --Ubiq 08:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
coulter
I overwrote your comment, just because I felt that it might sidetrack the issue with meta issues of exactly what concensus is. I didn't mean to step on your toes, and feel free to re-insert the passage if you still want to :) --kizzle 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Although, normally I would prefer if you not removed my comments, my official position on this removal is "Whatever". Editors who do what Lonewolf is doing really tick me off. Everyone works to a compromise/consensus version, and then this person comes in, ignores the previous discussion, and makes changes which were already discussed and rejected. Then they just dig in even though there is no support for there change. And on top of all that, they don't even have the decency to state what policy they are making the change under. They just want their version in the article. GRRRR!!!! (Rant over now).Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Last time :) I just did it because I sensed the frustration in your post and thought the situation could be resolved quicker without it. I understand your frustration, but don't let it take away from the immensely positive contribution you made to Coulter (Hell, you took out 2 sentences and single-handedly stopped a 2-week old edit war!) Feel free to vandalize my userpage if you want retribution ;) --kizzle 20:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Pleasure working with you
Thank you very much. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank so much.
Since we deserve each other, apparently
