User talk:Tristessa de St Ange/Archive 5

witchita

Welcome sort-of back, my British friend. -M^ask 18:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC comments

I haven't commented in the RfC (now moot, as it's been deleted for lack of certification), particularly because the RfC does not address any on-wiki conduct on my part. My only involvement was to inform Avilla that he was not permitted to post logs from my privately owned channels without my permission; to do otherwise is copyright infringement. I took no administrative actions with regard to the situation; to assert such, as you quite clearly did in your response, is patently false. The only actions I took were to notify Avilla that he was not permitted to post logs from my channels, and that he would be taken to arbitration if he did not stop doing so. I dare you or anyone else to produce evidence to the contrary. I strongly suggest you go back over the evidence involved; you quite obviously did not have your facts straight when you wrote your response. Frankly, I think you owe me an apology. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 22:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that my only administrative action in this dispute, the permanent deletion of three revisions from [[User talk:Benon]], was performed entirely within the realm of standard practice. As I specified in my deletion reason and again in my statement in the now-delisted request for comment, the revisions were deleted following a non-solicited request from Benon himself, who perhaps wished to protect the privacy channel policy and tradition affords him. Please consider reading all users' statements more carefully in the future to help prevent any possible aggravation or conflict. Thank you for taking the time to examine and comment on the request for comment. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 23:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology

Hi Nicholas Turnbull. I left you one message to your "mediator response" Please respond. Thank you. --Nikitchenko 18:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nicholas. Thank you for offering to mediate. Can you please help, Antaeus Feldpsar and Stollery keep reverting me and are not saying why[1] [2]. Stollery thinks Tory Christman's words can be used in the Office of Special Affairs article. But it is against WP:V and WP:RS. Antaeus doesn't discuss this. --Nikitchenko 09:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I have discussed this extensively on the article's talk page - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 09:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stollery say we can use Tory's statement because we are writing about Tory. But we are writing about OSA and some editrs use Torys claim (from her personal website) to write about OSA. This is totally contradictory of WP:RS which define part of Policy WP:V. --Nikitchenko 01:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glen thinks we can use Tory Christman as source to write the OSA article and he says its because we are writing about Tory. This is the disputed contents: "Tory Christman, a former member of the OSA has stated that the organization hired private investigators, fabricated criminal charges and harassed their targets, including at their place of employment, as well as their family members." That statement is about OSA, not Tory. She is the source and is unreliable. --Nikitchenko 10:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd edits

... to British Africans.

Check out the "trivia" section of Ainsley Harriott. There are alot of odd edits to black Britons making peculiar note of their ethnicity.

Other edits include trivia points that certain famous British and Americans (not restricted to blacks) are friends, "good" friends, "close" friends, whatever, with other celebrities, including Steven Seagal.

What's going on???

- CobaltBlueTony 15:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schuckardt

We appear to have lost our mediatior. DanielPi has been doing some good work with myself and Athanasius303 on developing guidelines for this article. He has not added any input for a few weeks and I fear that he will not be returning. We did make good progress on the article and I believe with just a little mediation to give input on some policy type guidelines, the mediation can be closed. The topic is controversial and often Athanasius303 and myself do not see eye to eye, but we have both demonstrated restraint and a willingness to learn what is acceptable for a Wikipedia article. I am hopeful that just a little neutral third party view could go a long way to resolving our differences. I do not know the procedure for proceeding with the mediation since DanielPi never did formally remove himself. Bernie Radecki 21:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Featured

Hi, I was wondering of you can help solve the GA->FA tag dispute at Template talk:Featured. 69.192.8.106 01:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What have you done?

Hello Nicholas: I do not agree with your block and with any of the so-called "reasons" you cite. If User:PZFUN had any problems he could have contacted me first. The only one complaining that I know of is User:Shuki who threatened me with violence [3] and I overlooked that, instead, you have acted as both prosecutor and judge, which does not reflect well on your judgment. You could have asked for more clarification. You have also disrupted my ongoing contributions to other articles which have nothing to do with this discussion. IZAK 06:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?

Nich old boy: When you say: "I would also suggest that you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as you appear to be spending a great deal of time attempting to espouse your own personal points of view on Wikipedia" what in heavens name do you mean? I am no different to any other hard-working Wikipedia editor. You are totally out of line with the accusation quoted above. It's been a long-long time since anyone alleged that I was doing this. Yes, I admit, my interests are mainly within Category:Jews and Judaism and Category:Israel and Zionism and I know a lot in particular about these subjects. Don't you have your own interests or are you only caught up in process and not content? What don't you like about my work? Have you read all of it? What do you know about these subjects that you can critique what I have or have not said or what my view is or is not? IZAK 06:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK was emotional. He'd had to deal with some rather vile attacks on himself, and while perhaps not ideal, was hardly asking for a block. I see nothing particularly severe there, and certainly nothing that warrants the blocking of a respected, long-term contributor. Blocks are meant to be used as a last resort, not because someone gets on your nerves, and minor civility issues neither are, nor have ever been, grounds for blocking. Rebecca 00:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I also must say that your recent block of me was a bit premature and uncalled for. JohnnyBGood t c 00:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement

Dear Nicholas: Thanks for taking the time and effort to respond on my talk page. Here is a cross-posting of my response from my talk page so that you should not miss it. Read it carefully. Sincerely, IZAK 06:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas: I do not agree with you! Judging from your response/s above, it is crystal clear that you have either chosen to ignore or have missed the crux of the entire episode. Given that a number of well-respected admins disagreed with your actions in this instance you are thus NOT at liberty to use in any way whatsoever insofar as my "behaviour in the past relating to the recent AfD should not be repeated in the future;" so that "otherwise, myself or another administrator may well have to block you from editing Wikipedia." If any admin wishes to interject themselves (by issuing blocks or whatnot) into any INTELLIGENT (albeit heated) debate that is taking place between a number of editors (and in this case there were admins on either side of the debate) they would be well-advised to give at least one prior warning AT THAT FUTURE TIME, if and when such a situation were ever to occur, so that the person being informed should be made aware that more serious measures are being considered, such as a "block" by an invisible admin. Thus this statement of yours is to be considered null and void and of no import whatsoever. The following is the procedure you would be obliged to follow when a situation arises that is CLEARLY concerned with matters relating to articles and their CONTENTS (for example, in the context of a legitimate discussion on a talk page or during voting) which is what this bebate was about when you interjected without an invitation: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes: Wikipedia:Negotiation; Wikipedia:Requests for comment; Wikipedia:Requests for mediation; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration etc. Kindly do not threaten me in any way whatsover and save your scare tactics for less seasoned Wikipedians. Wikipedia is known for it's fairness, and you need to remember that in the future it is you with the powers of admin that needs to work within the paramaters of WP:GF and consider the CONTEXT and CONTENT of the situation in it's entirety when dealing with contributing editors who are acting out of genuine motives for the betterment of Wikipedia. My discussions with User:Kim Bruning (see my page above) have been far more productive, as he has at least been willing to get to the heart of the matter, a very wise approach indeed in contradistinction to your uncalled for actions vis-à-vis me which creates an air of even greater potential friction than had existed prior to your actions. IZAK 05:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some new responses

Hi Nicholas: I have provided some updated responses to some of your remarks at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nomination by PZFUN, and Speedy keep of several articles by Slimvirgin. Thanks. IZAK 06:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Can you block User:74.130.171.59. He is still vandalising even after a third level warning! I just gave him a level 4 warning. the_ed17^(talk)^(contribs) 14:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology

It seems no one wants to mediate the dispute at Office of Special Affairs and so some contributors making exceptions to WP:V/WP:RS with claims it improves article quality. They think citing lies/rumors improve article quality. If no mediators responds (it's been more than a week since my latest entry to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology), I take it to RFC. --Nikitchenko 01:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a quick answer. :) I understand you are busy. Me too. Thats why I am only here couple hours each week. If it helps you understand my dispute, I am disputing reliability of sources and the disruptive behavior of the other editors who revert me over & over even though I follow policy and guidelines. I would rather work on article relating to dive sites but when I saw what is in Wikipedia about Scientology I decided to quit and then decided to do something about it. --Nikitchenko 01:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nicholas, some of us make more statements on the mediation page. Thanks again for you attention. --Nikitchenko 20:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Southampton

Hi Nick, I noticed that you removed the fact that Hartley's original ambition was to set up a harem from the above article. This is a fact (albeit a surprising one), not vandalism, and is sourced from the book referenced at the bottom of the article. The book states that the city council of the time ignored Hartley's wishes and founded a purely educational institute in his name instead. I know it might not be a fact that we wish to promote, but in the interests of the NPOV policy and completeness, I think it should stay in. I'll add a cite tag to make sure it's clear the information is sourced. Waggers 09:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Volunteer

Hello,

I am currently studying a lot of ADR courses. My current course is on the use of technology in ADR. In a class Colin Rule suggested that those wanting to practice their on-line mediation skills check out this site. I love the Wikipedia cite and am preparing to edit the page on J.P. Donleavy. I am writing you and wasting your time as I would like to do some mediations here. I have been going through the site and learning how things here work. I am not very tech savvy but am learning. Any suggestions? I have no actual mediation experience but am kind patient openmnded and nuetral. I would like to spend some significant time mediating here for the next few weeks. Am I going about this the right way?

Sincerely, --Sarazani 16:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSK

Hi Nicholas, thank you for your note. My reason for reblocking is that the indefinite block of MSK was very thoroughly discussed at the time, and should be very thoroughly discussed again before being undone. Indeed, it was discussed more than for any other user I can recall in the time I've been here. The other reason I reblocked is that she is a staff member at the website that has recently caused very serious problems for two users (Phil and Kate) (and/or helped to publicize those problems), and has published less serious, but also unpleasant, attacks on many others. I am going to email you one of these by way of example, because it is too unpleasant to publish on Wikipedia. In addition, my recollection is that MSK made no useful contributions to the encyclopedia while she was here. If you were going to mentor her, my guess is that it would be a full-time job.

Can you tell me, please, how this issue ever arose in the first place? It might help if I understand what the motivation was. Feel free to e-mail me if you'd prefer. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

30 May 06 - Nikitchenko indef blocked, case closed

Hi Nicholas, just got your message. The ironic thing is that I'd been calling out for someone to do a CheckUser on Nikitchenko all along. I think someone asked David Gerard to do it a long time ago but nothing else was ever heard about it. There are several other Scientology-POV-pushing troublemakers and borderline vandals still at large on the Scientology-related articles, however. wikipediatrix 16:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation or Guidance Sought

Hi Nicholas, I'm trying to prevent an edit war and could use some advice or support.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion Revision as of 04:52, 31 May 2006

On 19 May, I listed my original proposal. On 20 May, Jefffire responded to my 19 May post On 21 May, I responded to Jeffire's 20 May post On 24 May, three days later, Jeffire had failed to respond to my 21 May post. I asked if there was further discussion. On 25 May, seeing no further response or discussion by Jeffire, I made the modifications. On 25 May, within hours, Jeffire reverted my modifications without completing the outstanding discussion with me and without providing any specific defense for his actions. On 28 May, I brought to the attention of this group the apparent failure of Jeffire to, IMO play by the rules. I've seen no response from Jefffire or anyone else on this apparent breach of protocol. On 28 May, Pcarbonn expressed support of my idea to remove the references to Nature and Science.

What shall I do? Repost my changes and see if Jeffire, or someone else reverts them without discussing and defending -- as I have done - at significant time and effort on my part?

Thanks, STemplar 05:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage.

I've gotten a serious complaint over it and I can't be damned to try and make it so blatantly stupid it's funny; Nuke it back to the stoneage. (reb 56076905) --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 06:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

med cabal related block

I'm the mediator from the mediation cabal for Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23 Perl. I've done about 20 cases for mediation cabal. I think the Perl case is going to go to pot (and this is an important article) without a little admin type help.

I have set up a special mediation page at: Talk:Perl Mediation. I'm having a problem with User:Pudgenet who is trolling the mediation page (essentially he objects to dispute resolution regarding another user). I'd like a 24 block of him, Though a 24 ban on all Perl pages Perl, Talk:Perl and Talk:Perl Mediation would be better but may be too much to ask. Samples of problems edits: [4], [5], [6]

Thanks in advance, jbolden1517 ^Talk 03:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an update you can see | another 3rd party editor has taken even more negative view and believes this case needs to go directly to rfa. Again I think I can salvage it with a little administrative assistance but it shows you I'm not just blowing hot air. jbolden1517 ^Talk 11:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate redirect for Template:User EFF - for now

Is it possible to recreate the redirect at least for now? I just started moving the page to my userpage in an pilot test for the German solution. Currently in the migrating process (bypassing redirects). I am requesting at least a couple hours before deleting the redirect to allow the migrating process to complete. --Hunter 16:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NicholasTurnbull, hi. I've been working with the group implementing Wikipedia:The German solution, and we're working on migrating all the userboxes into userspace as smoothly as possible. Additionally, we've got this template: {{User GUS UBX to}} as a more specific and somewhat friendlier version of {{deletedpage}}. Since you delete/protected the page, I wanted to let you know I'm going to try changing the message on that page to {{User GUS UBX to|EFF|Winhunter/Userboxes/EFF}} as part of this test run. If you disagree with this action, please let me know. Actually any feedback you can provide on the template or on the plan in general would be appreciated. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German solution

Nicholas, hi. I noticed you deleted User:Winhunter/Userboxes/No-CCP and User:Winhunter/Userboxes/EFF. I wonder if you could comment on what you consider the boundaries of what userboxes are permissible in user space. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Nicholas. I'm concerned about these particular deletions, because I'm working with The German solution, and I'm very keen to see the "userbox wars" be over. Right now, we admins have a choice, to pursue this issue in a way that results in more aggravation of more users, or less. I'm pretty firmly opposed to doing it the inflammatory way anymore, because I think the userbox affairs of January and May alienated some good contributors, and were damaging to Wikipedia. Moreover, I see a better way, and can't let it go.

I wonder whether you'd consider taking those boxes to MfD instead? I know it seems a bit wanton, to use a deletion review for something that really should go, but we do it all the time with article deletions. Remember that we're not required to speedy anything, although in some cases we really should (copyvios, creations by banned users). We actually can choose speedy deletion or XfD in almost all cases. Why choose MfD for userfied userboxes? Because it gives us an opportunity to explain what's wrong with them in the deletion discussion, and it avoids the (very real, very avoidable) bad feelings incurred by speedy deletion. I'm absolutely certain that people will take speedy deletions of userfied userboxes as an act of agression right now, and voila! - we're back in a dynamic that many will want to describe as a "war". If we can be smarter about it, and avoid entering into that dynamic, it's worth the week on MfD.

I'm making this request - that you restore those templates and take them to MfD - out of deep concern for the well-being of this project. We have a chance to not start Userbox War III. Please, let's take that opportunity, to do what Jimbo actually suggested (educate), instead of what he's continued to recommend against (alienate). I warmly encourage you to trust me on this, and to put your good faith behind a different approach to dealing with the userbox problem. I look forward to your reply. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have been listed on DRV. Kotepho 03:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guerilla still needs some work though

But it's a nice start. I think we can still boost performance somewhat. The problem will be to find experienced mediators, or even decent admins. That's going to be terribly tricky. Kim Bruning 02:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WILLING TO HELP

I am interested in helping out with the Guerilla Network, in any way possible. including doing administrative work. I am a mediator for the cabal, and this will kill the backlog.Geo.plrd 21:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GUERRILLA

This I am interested in. I am currently a mediator with the mediation cabal and a moderator with VandalProof... this new system looks awsome! Please let me know when I can apply! Eagle talk 05:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No talk page spamming

Is this a "live" proposal? It seems to be almost-but-not-quite orphaned. Alai 17:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just wacked a quick suggestion on its talk page to suggest it gets merged into another page. Petros471 17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Mediation Or Whatever

It was not me who proposed the mediation, I think somebody called it because we were arguing, but that was over a week ago and the dispute has since been resolved in a civil manner. ;) thanks alot! --Ira-welkin 23:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nicholas,

i was googling for a definition of the philosophical concept of "mediation" and came upon your masterful mediation of the alienus/loxley dispute. blessed are the peacemakers, man. thanks so much for such a good example of How It's Done.

take care, JS

Guerrilla mediation

I'd like to help. I've got no 'formal experience' mediating on Wikipedia, but I consider myself a level-headed and objective person. So, I'll be around.

On a related note, the 'how this works' page at Guerrilla mediation says you have to apply to the coordinators as a mediator. Is this a mistake? It seems to contradict what it says on the main article page. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 15:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you there?

Aye or nay. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 04:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits that made my day

Thanks for rewording the stuff in ARC, your rewrite was significantly better and an elegant reduction. AndoSEKleton 17:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Taskforce

I added Certified Management Consultant to your desk because you expressed an interest in business articles. Please look at it and either accept or let me know and I'll reassign it. Thank you. RJFJR 03:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Lay Ogg

Re: Image:Kenneth Lay.ogg, can you tell me how you created this file (what software, what ways you modified the data)? MUSICAL 14:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MUSICAL: Certainly; it's excellent to hear from someone interested in going into doing spoken Wikipedia articles. :) Well, I used the sound editing application Audacity to record the sound file, on an Oktava MK-319 (a cardioid large diaphragm studio mic). Any studio mic with preamp, or electret mic, should suffice for the purpose; indeed, one can use a cheaper desk mic without any kind of amplification, although the results are never quite as good (as shown by my older recordings). I basically just recorded myself reading the article via Audacity, and then edited out any hesitations or mistakes from the recording using the program re-reading any areas where I made mistakes and just deleting the errors afterwards, when proofing the final recording. Apart from that, there was nothing else I did to the file, since there wasn't enough noise in the recording to merit noise removal - if you're using a cheaper mic you might want to use the noise removal function in Audacity to get rid of the mic noise, but again the results are not normally terribly good. I then just exported the file as Ogg from Audacity, and uploaded it. I hope this answers your question; please do let me know if you need any help with making spoken articles. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info and for the recording. It was the first one of those I listened to and it sounded very good. MUSICAL 11:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Guerilla Mediation Network

It is difficult to check past uses of this, but it appears the only one currently with a tag was added on June 18. —Centrx→talk • 00:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new userbox you might like

Hi Nicholas,

I couldn't resist making the following userbox after reading the attached link. After being insulted on numerous occasions by trolls I decided to fight back the best way I know how -- with a witty userbox! Feel free to remove this from your talk page if you don't appreciate the humour. = )

Cheers,

Netsnipe ^(Talk) 06:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP: Policies & guidelines

This Wikipedian is proud to be a “Bureaucratic F**k”.

Your interference on Barrett article

May I ask where you think you get the authority to "soft-ban" anyone? How you think I have engaged in POV warring, when I haven't entered a single POV into this (or any other) article? How you think that I am a "sock puppet" when my contribution record reveals otherwise? Did you bother to read anything of which I argued on the talk page? Can you seriously argue that Levine2112's edits are NPOV, while mine are POV? You have acted like a Wiki terrorist, IMHO. Larry Sarner 21:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nicholas. I am happy to stop editing the article if that is going to allow a balanced article presenting all side of the issues, not only promoting the views of the subject of the article or of organizations that he belongs to or presides. I am the the one who posted the warning on neutral point of view after repeated editing designed to present only one side of the issue have been made by Sarner and others. While I do not think that you are acting like a Wiki terrorist , I do think that an in depth look at the history of editing of this article will show that many attempts have been made to suppress valid information about the activities of Stephen Barrett, probably including edits by Stephen Barrett himself. Warm regards. OKO

Dear Nicholas. By the way your warning to Sarner was simply a copy of your warning to me.... Unlike Sarner I have not been warned before so it does look I have been served the same dose of medicine without the same history of dis-ease :-) Cheerio OKO

Can I expect a reply ? --OKO 10:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bowlby Page and Sarner ban

Dear Nicholas. I see that Larry Sarner is banned from editing the Bowlby article. Is he also prohibited from the talk page? His comments on the talk page suggest that he is only voluntarily not making changes in the Bowlby article as part of a "gentleman's agreement." Is that correct? You can comment here or on my talk page. JonesRD 17:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Sarner is continuing his "fight" on the Bowlby talk page (see his comments in the reference section. Must we continue to have to deal with this? I suppose the best thing would be to ignore his comments, yes? DPeterson 18:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Sarner is now stating (on the Bowlby talk page) that he is not banned from editing that page. I am concered about that and that he may take his approach and "fight" to other pages. Your intervention here would be appreciated. Please respond to my talk page. RalphLender 16:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

Just saying hi...it may interest you to know that your little protégé, to whom you gave all that advice a few months ago, is now advising other people on dispute resolution - evidently your advice was sound! --David Mestel^(Talk) 19:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your touching message - it's nice to make people happy. Thankyou also for my first award! I seem to be making myslef powerful enemies though (I'm currently negotiating with User:Rebecca, née User:Ambi!). However, hopefully she realises that it's just my job. --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me again - I'd just like some advice on how do put your award on to my userpage; at the moment, my userboxes squash it and make it look a bit bad. How should I solve this? --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rather suspect that in the course of Wikilife you may have missed the preceeding comment. Do you have any suggestions as to how I could make it look better? --David Mestel^(Talk) 05:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continued Conflict moves from Bowlby page to Attachment Therapy Talk Page

There is an anon user who is making comments and accusations on the Attachment Therapy talk page (see last section) that are very similiar to those that sarner made; the tactics and language and approach are similiar. I see developing on this page a repeat of what occurred on the Bowlby page. Can you intervene there; or make some suggestion? Thank you. DPeterson 02:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Your monitoring of this page would be helpful as I see the idential conflict emerging on this page as on the Barrett and Bowlby pages. I suppose the first step would be mediation? Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman 14:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Sarner seems to be continuing to be provocative and disrespectful on the Bowlby talk page. He is continuing the conflict and expanding it to other pages. How can this be appropriately addressed? RalphLender 18:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support !

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u\|t) 06:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your endorsement during my RfA, I think it helped my chances quite a bit! Hope to see you around again soon! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user

Hello NicholasTurnbull, I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that IP 75.26.5.4 is banned user Amorrow. That is in his IP range and he has edits those or similar articles. Let me know what you think. --FloNight ^talk 00:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Promotional References

On the Attachment Therapy page mercer has posted references to a book that she wrote with sarner, and sarner's spouse Rosa. The book is really a publicity piece for the mercer, sarner, and rosa advocacy group, Advocates For Children in Therapy of which the three are leaders. So mercer and a financial interest in this reference. The references have been deleted with a second warning put on mercer's talk page...is there anything else that I should do? Thanks. DPeterson 11:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]