User talk:😂/Archive2

Your incredible signature

They say that impersonation is the highest form of flattery! I'm currently trying to add your way of displaying the date to my signature, as I think it looks really good and saves space. However, I am having difficulty doing so. Since you can't have modifications to the date in your preferences, it seems to me that you must be printing your signature using this: ~~~/<em style="font-size:10px;">~~~~~</em> every time, which produces Xyrael ^T/09:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC) with my current sig. Am I correct? It just seems like a very awkward way round it. Thanks for your help. --Xyrael ^T 09:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! I just noticed you reply to Xyrael, where you said you use {{subst:User:^demon/sig}} to sign your posts. A minor tip to perhaps make your life easier: put that text in the "Nickname" field in Special:Preferences, check "Raw signature" and save. Signing will then become as easy as putting 3 tildes: ~~~. Happy editing! Misza13 ^{T C} 12:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested, ^demon, this discusison is continuing on Misza13's talkpage, where I've discovered a really cool method, and I'm trying to work out the best way of getting round it in VandalProof, as this could cause difficulties. Thanks for all the help that you've given. --Xyrael ^T 11:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got mine working at last, here, but I'm not using it at the moment due to VandalProof not being as accomodating as I'd like. Thanks for all your help in getting there. —Xyrael 21:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

David O'Hanlon

I was not experiminting with anything on the page. I was adding a paragraph on the subject. Some of my contributions were overwritten by someone using rather emotive language that in fact distorted the accuracy of what I had written. I corrected that. I am not the vandal!!

Thanks for letting me know. I just saw a mass of edits by one IP address, ending with what was (obviously) some bad material. Sorry if I messed up your genuine work. -^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Good. Then can you replace them so?

I took a look at the article, and it appears that the only revision I did was to remove the (ass) comments (diff). The person after me removed more comments, and I'm not exactly sure how you want the article now. As it's not a subject that I'm familiar with, I suggest you be bold and fix it yourself. Sorry I can't be of any more help. -^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing of Jordan Elder's talk page.

That was me, but I wasn't logged in. I reverted it myself. --Jordan Elder talk 02:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Are you still interested in becoming a mediator? Ral315 (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It is my pleasure to announce that after great consideration, you have been accepted as a member of the Mediation Committee. I encourage you to place the Mediation Committee page and Requests for Mediation on your watchlist, as well as the open tasks page, which will be updated as new cases are accepted. You may also (and are encouraged to) join the Committee's internal mailing list. If you have any questions about how the committee functions, please feel free to ask me or one of the other mediators. Congratulations on becoming a member! Ral315 (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

False Prophet med nom

I just wanted to drop you a courtesy note letting you know I reverted your closing of the False Prophet mediation nomination; the two oppose rule is two opposes by Committee Members, and though I put it in the wrong section, I'm the only Commmittee Member who has noted opposition. The other two opposes are community opinions, which, while appreciated and considered where appropriate, do not count towards the two oppose rule. I didn't want you to think I was overruling you; just want to make sure everything follows our process. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your Request for Mediation

Hello, Danflave

My name is ^demon, and I am going to mediate the case that you requested concerning the episodes of Lost. Right now, before we continue, I would like to know if you prefer public or private mediation. If you could just let me know over at your request for mediation, I would be most grateful. Have a pleasant evening.

Regards, ^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /02:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you had time to consider whether you would prefer public or private mediation. Your input is greatly appreciated. Thanks, and have a nice day. -^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /13:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Demon - I no longer edit the Lost Wikipedia page. I do not have an opinion regarding public or private mediation. Thank you Danflave 18:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Ideogram arbcom case

Hi there, I am a coordinator of the Mediation Cabal and I saw your comments here. I just wanted to tell you that there appears to be some confusion - Ideogram, a past member of the Mediation Cabal who decided to voluntarily leave it to give himself more flexibility, was closing a medcab case as there appeared to be a reluctance for any sort of mediation. It appears that because there was a Medcom and Medcab case at the same time, this led to some confusion. He left a note on the talk page concerning the medcab case, apparently unaware that a medcom case was occuring at the same time. See Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-12_PT_and_WCityMike for the Medcab case page, which is probably where the confusion stems from. I just thought I'd inform you of this so things could be cleared up in the arbcom case. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 02:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, and I forgot to mention the fact that he is not a current Medcab 'member' is irrelevant if you are questioning him closing the medcab case, as the mediation cabal is an informal process, so anyone has the ability to edit the case pages appropriately. Cowman109^Talk 02:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

mediator nomination

I noticed your post on my nomination for mediator. I believe you are mistaken about me posing as another user in a previous nomination. I, in fact, requested a name change following the proper process and was granted permission to change my user name from Freestyle.king to Bonafide.hustla. In regard to the long term abuse archive, I was adding simply adding a long term vandal whose arbitration case just close, so actually it wasn't myself, I was simply updating the list. In addition, my blocks, as stated in my block log, were unjustified and the second block was just a 1 second block by the blocking admin who admitted he was wrong in blocking me. For more info, please see my block log. But anyway, just a clarification.--Bonafide.hustla 00:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for signing.

--SarekOfVulcan 01:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

MediationBot

You're most welcome :) If you have any tips on improving the bot, please feel free to tell me. Happy editing, Tangotango 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation with PT Can Be Closed

I've retired from Wikipedia, and thus, my mediation with PT is moot. Thank you for your efforts thus far in the mediation. My talk page has been deleted at my request, so no need to reply. Good luck in your future edits. — Mike 17:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Totally stunned... but, I guess I'll second that close? PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Closed as requested. -^demon^{[yell at me]} 18:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I wish to do two things: 1. Edit productively, which I have tried to do over the past do days, and 2. Open an RFC on ridiculous actions taken by JzG on the The Guardian page. I cannot do either, because everytime I try to I am blocked by two administrators, both of whom have now engaged in vandalism, personal attacks, wikistalking and violations of WP:POINT. I can explain the situation in full, with diffs and plenty of evidence, if I am given the chance. However, I need to be unblocked so I can state my case. I want my current account, User:Tchadienne, immediately unblocked so I can communicate with you in a civilized manner. Thank you, Tchadienne (4.249.6.96 21:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

Lost mediation

Hope you could look at our recent discussion, we seem to be stuck. -- Wikipedical 00:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can, please contact User:Essjay for us about how to proceed. The mediation has been idle for quite some time. -- Wikipedical 20:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My Nomination

Thanks for your message. I admit I had missed the question. I'll try to answer it soon. --Guinnog 21:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Another lost mediation

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus has been created for a while now and nobody has responded. All attempts to contact User:Essjay have resulted in someone telling us that he is on a Wikibreak. As you are listed first on the Mediation committee, could you point as at someone who could help us with this? DJ Clayworth 22:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

missing mediation

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict is being referenced in an RfA. Please restore it from the archive. Carbonate 21:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting mediations

Hi, you're tagging failed mediations for deletion I see. Would it not be better to just redirect them to the archive? I don't like the idea leaving lots of redlinks; many of the pages you're tagged are linked from multiple talk pages. Proto::type 02:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My mediation committee nomination

Thanks for fixerising my nomination, on top of my old one. I appreciate the time you took to sort out my mistake. —Xyrael / 15:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation for Dook page, et al

Greetings - I saw that you opened up the Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Dook, and I wanted to mention, as I had via that talk page, that a compromise was reached. I had asked for information on how to unlist an item and...didn't really get an answer. If you would be so kind as to let me know, I will de-request or whatever process needs to happen on that one. Thanks for your taking up that task, however, and sorry for taking up your time- DukeEGR93 01:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Accepting

Hello ^demon, thanks for being the mediator regarding socionomics. Please let me know what to do and what you need, I'll respond as quickly as I can.

Rgfolsom 15:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Love to help

I'd love to help, but after being accused of "misusing every privilege" and being stripped of admin rights, I don't feel sufficiently empowered to be an active Mediator. Wikipedia's current crop of judges (er, arbitrators) even put me on probation for daring to counter Liberal Bias by inserting Conservative viewpoints into articles on global warming, evolution & intelligent design, and Communist genocide.

If NPOV is dead, how can I mediate? Wikipedia had its chance, but (like the U.N.) has departed from its original ideals. God help it. --Uncle Ed 19:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of backlash; I'm just wondering whether I can be effective. If you have confidence in my ability to perform a mediation, however, I'm willing to step up to the plate. When I *was* an active mediator, I had a (record-setting?) string of successes. --Uncle Ed 19:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me think this over now . . . ^_^ --Uncle Ed 20:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

mediations

armando-dailokos was moved out to WP:BLP, caratacus stalled. I won't mediate anymore, I feel the system is suboptimal and there's plenty of other wikiwork to do. -- Drini 22:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration for Iran-Iraq War

To recap thus far they (the two arbiters) found your reasoning flawed not mine. They called it a "shallow reason." That is to say pinning the blame on me for a failure and your rejection. I agree, but if he won't come to the mediation table how is it not valid for arbitration and what is the solution then?

My question is this: why can't a violator be held accountable? Why is the messenger getting killed here?Marky48 21:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

^demon, would a pattern of incivility by the same user (against other Wikipedians, on other topics, as showing character) be relevant information for the arbitration? For instance, the personal attacks on other editors in Talk:Disemvoweling?  – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 07:26, 9 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Why is it that any question of content is a personal attack to some? This is about the edits not the messenger. People defending their choices against all comers are gaming the system with this false attack charge. It's a great diversion, but bad editing slips right on by in the moonlight. That's not what an encyclopdedia wants. The above poster is seeking revenge for challenges made to his editing. Ultimately he won through the same sort of guerilla defenses as in this aritration issue, but still wants revenge.Marky48 18:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Immediately after posting the above comment, Marky48 went back to Disemvoweling (which had been stable for 3.5 days) and once again deleted references: (in chronological order)

• 18:26, 10 November 2006 User talk:^demon (→Arbitration for Iran-Iraq War - Revenge of the editor)
• 18:30, 10 November 2006 Disemvoweling (Not a valid source: two sci-fi bloggers)

"Revenge of the editor", indeed. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:49, 10 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Quote, "I refuse to deal with this user anymore." Uh, ^demon, which one? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 01:42, 11 Nov 2006 (UTC).

BKWSU

Hi

just to say thanks for trying re [1].

Am I correct in saying that you went to act as mediator on the Brahma Kumaris topic but that *ALL* or *ANY* of the other parties refused to participate?

I would appreciate clarification.

Where can I receive official clarification over the use of an organization's own materials on a topic page? I see absolutely no problem with doing so.

Thank you. 195.82.106.244 10:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Your MedCom Nom

I've replied using Special:Emailuser. Thanks. —Xyrael / 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

RFM: Machismo

I just realized that the RFM on Machismo is still open (and you accepted the difficult task of mediating). Marsiliano never accepted in the end to go to RFM and instead he got in trouble by repeatedly vandalizing and ended with a block. I think the request should be archived at this point. I had totally forgot about it. How do I do that? Or can you do it yourself? --Sugaar 17:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Socionomics mediation case

Hi ^demon, I know you accepted a mediation case on the ongoing revert war going on between Smallbones and Rgfolsom on the Socionomics article. It quieted down for a few days, but now the article is back getting reverted back and forth with little forward progress. I have an opinion on the matter, and if you ask (or email me if you can figure out how to do that) I will be glad to give it to you. I'm also willing to put it in the talk page on the article. (And in fact I did put a little in once about a week or two ago.) I don't understand how these kind of revert wars eventually get stopped... What is the next step to ending the war? Thanks. N2e 04:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

^demon, can you please point me to where I could learn about WP policy/practice relative to how it is advised to best stop/slowDown/moderate a revert war, like the one I referred to above? I don't really want to get into the middle of the fight (tar baby?), but I believe some reasonable outsider needs to review the Socionomics debate and enter in some balanced opinion. Also, what ever happened to the mediation case? Will a result or status get published if I just wait it out? Thanks. N2e 00:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I will try to stand back and patiently wait for the standard wiki-practices to have their hoped-for effect in this great emergent phenomenon we call Wikipedia where self-organizing behavior can result in a spontaneous order. N2e 17:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello ^demon,

I have emailed you (Nov. 21) regarding the socionomics mediation, though you haven't acknowledged the message. On the chance that my email did not arrive, please tell me the status of our mediation. Thank you. Rgfolsom 14:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation DOA

I believe you can remove this request from the calendar of cases needing a mediator. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Small page edit reverted

Hi, you reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VPL&diff=next&oldid=84003360... this was not a test but removing a duplicate of "Visible Panty Line" which is already at the top of the page.

User: 216.27.165.170

I think 216.27.165.170 needs to have a little quiet time. He is continually adding the "locked" template to Mulatto and its associated Talk page, even though they are not locked. He is probably trying to keep other from editing the pages. I just removed the template from both pages. I see that you had warned him already. •DanMS 03:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Noble change

The line that you claim to be false acually has some truth. I wanted to add to the page to contribute not to vandalize. see the reference line below.

As early as 1700, the maple leaf served as a symbol of sex celebrating the nature and environment of what is now Canada.

Back in the 1700's the canadian flag was very much a symbol of sexual freedom.

I study canadian culture in college.

Please leave this edit stand. It has merit and adds to the page.

Thanks

Boy Scout mediation

Hi, just checking in; it's been about a week since you accepted the mediation request on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Boy Scout. Is there anything that I or the other participants need to do before you start? Rlevse seems to have calmed down a bit, so perhaps some discussion is possible. GMcGath 14:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Welcoming

Thanks a lot for the heads up man. Have a great day. :) ↔ ANAS - Talk 14:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk FloNight 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

AWB substing of {{welcome}}

Oops, my bad. Thanks for fixing that. z4ns4tsu\^talk 14:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Rejected cases

Just realized this (probably because I use the Firefox Signature Extension and thus never alter my capitalization), but apparently MedBot won't respond if you don't capitalize the first letter of the templates; I noticed two outstanding rejected cases and fixed the capitalization, but this is something we'll have to keep in mind for the future. Darn picky bot! ;) Essjay (Talk) 05:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Tough job

Just had a nice radio station article written in March 2006 deleted, due to a speedy deletion mark by User:Calton -- who thought the Wikipedia was lifted from a web page -- when it fact the station improved their web page by talking major portions of my Wikipedia article -- maybe Wiki needs a policy on that. ha ha!! Happy holidays ! User:Beatgr 24 November 2006 5:58 UTC

What to do when a participant edits an RfM page?

Hi, Demon. I've just filed an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), and Elonka (talk · contribs) (one of the disputants in the matter) edited the "Issues to be mediated" section, instead of adding it at "Additional issues to be mediated". What's the correct course of action now? I don't want to jeopardize the case's chances of being accepted. I asked Essjay, but I notice that he says that he's busy, so I thought I'd ask you as well. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The situation has worsened — there's now an edit war on the RfM page itself. Some guidance from a MedCom member would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Demon. Right now I'm trying to get the participants to talk out a neutral wording on the RfM's talk page. Have we completely shot our chances of getting mediation accepted? There are so many participants, I'm worried that we'll never be able to get a wording that's acceptable to everybody, even though I do think that everybody wants a resolution to the situation, and is prepared to submit to mediation. What should we do about the RfM page itself? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Josiah and I are admins. We can lock it for you. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Although it's currently in the state I don't want it so it's difficult to claim bias!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

<-- A I have declined a request for unprotection of the mediation page, please contact me if you want this to occur. Gnangarra 08:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just dropping by to say that you seem to have the matter under control, and I'm staying out of it. When the page needs unprotection, let me know. Essjay (Talk) 03:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that this RfM has been unprotected, since it has been locked for about a week, could you clarify when exactly the deadline is for accepting it? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)