Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:45, 11 February 2010

This user is currently traveling in real life and may not be able to respond immediately to queries.

		The Original Barnstar
		For your editing efforts and beautiful images that helped advance Galveston, Texas to good article status. Thank you! Postoak (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Israel

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Israel (and the status of Jerusalem as capital) has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Israel and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Misplaced Pages's policy on resolving disagreements is at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission. -- tariqabjotu 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh...So its come to this ... "If you don't like the results of the RfC, you keep appealing and hammering away until you reach your preconceived outcome." I'll have to think for a few days about whether or not I'm interested in contributing to this circus act. Quite frankly, I'm growing tired of cloak-and-dagger politics on Misplaced Pages. nsaum75 19:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if you do not plan on participating would you mind accepting the mediation so that it can go forward? I can only speak for myself, but if the mediation concludes, regardless of the conclusion, I will not raise the issue again. nableezy - 18:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nsaum, your comments in the last attempt to reach agreement on this issue led me to believe that a compromise is not beyond reach. I am not a party to the mediation, but I believe that, if it is successful, it will go a long way to putting this issue to rest for a good while. So I suggest you go for it. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy & Ravpapa - Thank you for your notes on this topic. I informed Tariqabjotu several days ago that I would sign on to the mediation if all the others in the party agreed to it. I do not think a mediated solution is possible and am concerned that it could quite possibly be detrimental -- leading to even more "wikidrama", article instability, and general distrust amongst editors. However, that said, if there is a genuine interest from both sides in moving forward with the mediation, I am certainly willing to sign on so that it is not "killed". --nsaum75 04:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nsaum, have you considered that NMMNG may be thinking in a similar vein? I think that is possible - one of you may have to move first. --FormerIP (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Misplaced Pages

We could contact the Wikiproject Estados Unidos and see if the members are interested in forming a daughter project. How does that sound? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I asked here: es:Wikiproyecto_Discusión:Estados_Unidos#Wikiproyecto_Texas WhisperToMe (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think an admin is allowed to delete his or her own previous userpages. I'm not sure what the process is for a non-admin. You could ask the Wikipedia_talk:User_page talk page to see what the process is. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Niño Dios

Im working on an article about the Niño Dios and how it is venerated (Do you think that the right word? Im not Catholic either) here. Im sort of in a quandary. There is an article on Child Jesus and my sources state that this concept was brought over with the Spaniards, so this is not something completely unique to Mexico. However, the image and how it is venerated has definitely taken on a different character... for example, there are various Niño Dios images such as the Niño pa in Xochimilco, which have a year-round following of their own... so a separate article seems to be in order. I could simply name it "Niño Dios" as Niño Jesus seems to be more common in the Spanish speaking world but to be more specific, I could use "Niño Dios of Mexico" or "The Veneration of the Niño Dios in Mexico." Whaddya think?Thelmadatter (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Asked for my boyfriend's opinion (he is Mexican Catholic) and he votes for "Niño Dios of Mexico")Thelmadatter (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Sorry for the tardy reply. My schedule has been all sorts of hectic lately. I've heard the "Niño Dios de Mexico" variation before...and I believe there is some sort of feria in Oaxaca dedicated to him too..I'll have to check. --nsaum75 15:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Im still working on it and gonna take some pics this weekend of one of the markets selling stuff for Candelaria. My boyfriend bought an Aztec warrior outfit for his Niño Dios (I love it) so we have to upload pics of that.Thelmadatter (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded the page under Niño Dios of Mexico with pic. We can always move it if a better title gets thought of.Thelmadatter (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Golan mountain mediation

I'm thinking about requesting an official medcom mediation for the Golan mountain names. If I start one, would you be interested in participating? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture idea

If you would like to take another photo, what about Kermit Courville Stadium, the GISD stadium, in Galveston? GISD is now proposing that it will build a new stadium, so there is a possibility the old one may be torn down someday. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"When the Mrs. Fields cookie shop closed, they left the cookies in the display case for about a year...and well...they were very furry by that time. I never thought of cookies growing mold like bread, but.... anyhow.." - WOW. That is a shame that they simply didn't give them away. I would have thought some kids would have picked a lock or two to eat them in time...

Anyway, thank you in advance :)

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Israel. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon and Xavexgoem (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss or keep the Chabad editors case

Hi Nsaum: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. As someone who has been involved in the serious COI discussions leading up to this ArbCom case you should be informed of this motion and have the right to explain if you agree or disagree with this proposed motion and why. Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Contemplated motion to dismiss. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved this discussion here

SD, edits such as this one that you made today, and your trying to rush along discussions -- whether on article talk pages or in AE/ANI discussions -- does not sit well with the vast majority of editors. Instead of pushing a specific nationalistic point of view at articles, you might be better served by slowing down and collaborating with others. In general, its easier to create and expand than it is to restrict or remove. --nsaum75 08:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

nsaum75, you are only trying to throw more dirt at me and create more drama to get me banned from Israeli articles the same way you tried this during the arbitration case running to Cactus and showing what I had previously posted in my userboxes. Falafel is not part of the arbitration case or anywhere close to it, it is not a biography article, and I have followed my 1 rv restriction at that article. I have used the talkpage many times at falafel and you haven't responded to my questions, you have pushed a nationalistic pov by adding two pictures from Israel (majority of pictures at the page) so you should follow your own advise and start collaborating with me at the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I thought it was relevant in regards to CactusWriter's comments about your editing style at numerous places. Additionally, you continually push a Syrian POV at the expense of other nationalities or countries be it Israel or Egypt or Turkey...and like I said "In general, its easier to create and expand than it is to restrict or remove." Additionally, you might want to read up on WP:CENSOR, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:WIKILAWYERING.

Finally, the only person who has the power to get you banned from an article is you. If you feel you are editing with good faith in a fair, balanced and constructive manner, then you should not have anything to worry about. --nsaum75 09:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you, I do not believe I have pushed any POV at the expense of any nation. I believe that I have followed what sources say and the majority viewpoint of the world. And I do believe that you yourself have pushed an Israeli POV, for example:"The international community considers it part of Israel" and with this, I am now leaving this discussion to end the drama you created. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, please read up on Wikilawyering. I'm also not seeing how creating an RfC and/or discussions on proposed changes or improving articles by adding more photos is pushing a Israeli POV...especially since I'm not repeatedly involved in edit wars or content disputes with with other editors at most of the articles I edit...but maybe some other editors will chime in and give additional opinions, as sometimes its hard to see the errors of our own ways... but personally, I think my long and diverse edit history speaks for itself. Anyhow... Regards --nsaum75 10:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Falafel

Thanks so much for the comment on my photography. I enjoy it, although I know I have much to learn. About the article itself, I realize you are looking for ways to deflect attention from the "Israel problem," but I wonder if adding a weird recipe for shrimp-based falafel is the way to do it...LOL Somehow, I'm not sure that this particular version is any way notable or worthy of inclusion. That could lead to a zillion more recipes on ball-shaped fried foods that are clearly not felafel (as in the section that I deleted) --Gilabrand (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)