User talk:Wisden17/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

My RfA

Hello, Wisden17/Archive 3, and thank you for the supportive vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 84/1/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months, but welcome any and all feedback and suggestions on how I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! - Kukini 13:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba Mediation

Wisden17, thank you for accepting to mediate disputes on the Sathya Sai Baba article. Although I have a busy work schedule, I should be able to participate in the mediation process daily. I have no objection to carrying out the mediation process on Wikipedia. Sincerely, SSS108 ^talk-email 17:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer to mediate Sathya Sai Baba

Thanks for your offer to mediate Sathya Sai Baba, but I am a bit suprized that you stated it as if it were a fact that you are going to mediate this article. I think that you still have be accepted as a mediator by the disputing parties. Correct? Andries 20:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with communication about the mediation in Wikipedia. I still have to decide whether I will accept you as a mediator. Andries 06:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wisden17, perhaps it would help if you explained to Andries the difference between an Official Mediator (you) and a Non-Official Mediator (BostonMA)? Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 14:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Square leg umpire

So, why is the striker's end umpire not called the "square leg umpire"? Is that just an unofficial term? Also, clarifying in case you misunderstood - it's not my diagram, I found it and just tweaked a tiny bit. Stevage 18:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I need help with Golden Dawn mediation please help urgent!!

RfM Page Please see my reply to message on my talk page I need help urgently. Hi, I've just edited your RfM in my position as a member of the Mediation Committee. User:SynergeticMaggot should be listed as such, there is currently no User:Zos registered on Wikipedia (I understand that his signature is Zos, but this is immarterial). Your objections regarding Baba Louis have been left on the page, but I've crossed them out as this sort of thing should be left to the mediation.

I've done this editing to try and stop further conflict before the mediation has even begun. I've got the page on my watchlist and will keep an eye out. If there are further changes to the Request I will contact whoever does the editing. I would advise that you do not, to try and avoid further conflict.

I hope this helps calm the situation and that you can particpate in a successful mediation in the near future. --Wisden17 16:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I need immedaite help though as 999 has put me up to be blocked ou t on 3rr because I had to keep reverting the article back to version that the mediator asked me to ad to. Can you help me? this is my reply to the 3rr. If get improperly blocked I will not be able to complete the mediation.

Comment: Users have repeatedly edited the mediation file which breaks mediation rules by adding comment other than agree or disagree. I have made many announcements about this on the all their talk pages and make copious notes and requests in the article: Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn discussion pages and an explanation of why I requested mediation.

It is myself attempting to file for mediation and myself that is trying to build a consensus. 999 and other users of his faction keep reverting the mediation against mediation rules and I have to revert the article back the version that was agreed on by myself and the mediator. If I am improperly blocked I will not be able to finish the mediation file as the mediator has requested me to. I have contacted the mediator involved in this

User 999 shows by putting me up to be blocked that he is not in favour of building a consensus or sorting this out properly and in a dignified or civil manner.

User 999 has also made non-civil and has clearly shown that he is only interested in more trouble and not building a coherent consensus by the comments he leaves on my personal discussion page. Please take note of the comments in my talk page where user 999 taunts me saying “that’s four reverts see you in a week” this only confirms he is not interested in the mediation I have filed for or sorting this out properly. Blocking me is wrong thing to do at this point, please my points made for medaition at the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn discussion pages and an explanation of why I requested mediation.

I also requested help with 999 and other reverting the mediation file on the admin board this morning. This just goes to show that 999 carn’t help but revert articles.

Frater FiatLux 16:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC

Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Frater_FiatLux"

Comment: Users have repeatedly edited the mediation file which breaks mediation rules by adding comment other than agree or disagree. I have made many announcements about this on the all their talk pages and make copious notes and requests in the article: Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn discussion pages and an explanation of why I requested mediation.

It is myself attempting to file for mediation and myself that is trying to build a consensus. 999 and other users of his faction keep reverting the mediation against mediation rules and I have to revert the article back the version that was agreed on by myself and the mediator. If I am improperly blocked I will not be able to finish the mediation file as the mediator has requested me to. I have contacted the mediator involved in this

User 999 shows by putting me up to be blocked that he is not in favour of building a consensus or sorting this out properly and in a dignified or civil manner.

User 999 has also made non-civil and has clearly shown that he is only interested in more trouble and not building a coherent consensus by the comments he leaves on my personal discussion page. Please take note of the comments in my talk page where user 999 taunts me saying “that’s four reverts see you in a week” this only confirms he is not interested in the mediation I have filed for or sorting this out properly. Blocking me is wrong thing to do at this point, please my points made for medaition at the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn discussion pages and an explanation of why I requested mediation.

I also requested help with 999 and other reverting the mediation file on the admin board this morning. This just goes to show that 999 carn’t help but revert articles.

Frater FiatLux 16:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC

Thank you

Thank you for your note over at the 3rr page. Later I will comply with what the other mediator said over the points on the mediation and do that as per his request. I am a new user to Wikipedia and was not aware of certian things.

Thanks again as hopefully I get get the mess on the articles sorted out now.

Frater FiatLux 16:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Zos

I think you know by now that "I" am Zos, its my nickname. I'll change it after the mediation process (if it gets accepted). Although I wasnt apart of the reverting to the Mediation page, I only made a few changes at the beginning, to help. Thanks. Zos 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

RfM

I believe User:Frater FiatLux should be blocked per his last warning. There is nothing seriously wrong with the pages in question, the mediation can wait a week. This is a completely spurious mediation request in any case; all FFL wants to do is insert material derogatory toward a living individual into an article without reputable sources. Everyone has explained to him why that is inappropriate, but he seems to think that his original research trumps the properly cited material already in the article. It can wait. -999 (Talk) 17:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to agree once objections to any of the other participants has been withdrawn. -999 (Talk) 21:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well 999 that is simply not true. However, I will making substancial compromises to these articles in due course. Something that will stop all this pointless dispute and your games. I suggest you keep a look out on the discussion page for the HOGD article. Frater FiatLux 03:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:S-mil

Hi, why do you deleted this template? It should be used for succession boxes belonging to military offices, like Template:S-off for political offices or Template:S-reg for titles of nobility. I don't understand your decision, furthermore I created it of course in my sandbox before. The next time you delete a template, you should look after the page, where it is used too Hugh Dowding, 1st Baron Dowding and clean it - I won't do it. --Phoe 17:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, couple of things. I didn't delete the template, only administrators can delete pages, and I am not one. If you look at the page's deletion log you will see that User:Fang Aili deleted the template. From what I remember the template was not being used in any article, and was not formed correctly, hence the advice template I left above, suggesting you use your sandbox. If you need a hand recreating the template I can do so. --Wisden17 18:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Template

Looks like it was added to the article after it was deleted, so you weren't wrong in that it was unused when you tagged it (and when I checked it). I've restored it now. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's funny. I knew that the template would be correctly before I created it, because I only copied the code of the long existing Template:S-off to my sandbox and changed the color and name. I saved the template, inserted it on Hugh Dowding, 1st Baron Dowding, made a preview, it worked fully and I saved again. Thanks for your offer to support me in creating templates, but I've got a local mediawiki on my own server since a year, so I don't need it. Thanks again for the revert of the rervert/delete (whatever). Greetings Phoe 18:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

PS.: Wisden I answered you, because I had received your automic message of don't experiment, use sandbox, welcome page ... bla bla - you know the text. My mistake was to look not in the page history, so I thought you were the admin deleting the template. - Germany will throw England out of the cup, USA will fly home after the first round ... :-) Greetings Phoe 18:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Trinidad versus Iran. I think USA versus Iran were a better case ... after twenty red cards, the game would be canceled and Ghana (before third after a victory over Togo) named champion. But how pity, Iran and Togo are already out, they've got no chance to come in second round. The only one that is important: A time to make friends. So long Phoe 19:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, do you are Scottish? Alba mo run (hope, I wrote it rightfully). I would have liked it very much to watch the Scottish team breaking some noses. But whoever will become Champion 2006, I can say, that team will be celebrated extremely here in Germany. Phoe 19:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many things on world, nobody can do something. It's halftime, I go hunting some sauerkraut :-) See you, good night Phoe 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC) ****

Template subst question

I don't think there's a way, unfortunately. That's the downside to subst'ing. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Helpme

Hello, you used the {{helpme}} tag. How may I help you? When you've asked your question, please put the tag back so we know to check back. Alternatively, you can join the Wikipedia Bootcamp IRC channel to get real-time help. (Use the web-based client to get instant access.) --Pilot|guy 21:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion

You placed an opinion at RFD under an entry that had already been closed (Kutter). Based upon the fact that it wasn't in the correct place within the entry you did vote on, I think you actually meant to place it at the entry above that one (WAITES). I have moved it to that entry. If this was incorrect, please delete the opinion and remember that you should not modify a closed entry & that you should always add your opinion at the end. If it was correct, what happened was that a closure header will show up at the bottom of the previous entry (if the next entry is closed). You need to place your opinion before the closure header. If this didn't make sense, please let me know! Thanks. -- JLaTondre 22:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)