IBitOBear

Telelogic SYNERGY

I'm assuming you're the IP that just posted your edit prio to you before it was reverted. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Telelogic SYNERGY. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -WarthogDemon 04:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible Miscommunication Here And Apology

Checking back on history I see I've made not one, but two mistakes. First mistake being the fact that I didn't restate what User:Elaragirl said in the first reversal, in her edit summary: [1]. (Maybe you didn't notice it, whereas I made an assumption on bad faith you were ignoring it.) Second mistake was not assuming good faith in thinking you were a spammer via making an account. It certainly does seem I was wrong; you're obviously no spammer. I would just suggest you check the pages Elaragirl referred to you in her edit summary, and ask her on her talk page if you're still confused. I'll revert back to your message on talk page. I'm sure User:Elaragirl would be happy to discuss it with you, since she (unlike myself) didn't accidentally assume bad faith. Apologies again, and welcome to Wikipedia. -WarthogDemon 06:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He's new, so I don't see it as edit warring. I have a personal rule that the first revert doesn't count since I act boldly too often. IBitOBear, in response to your question, I can say that I would prefer to speedy delete the article than try to correct it, but there ARE sources out there for the article to be rewritten. A few are:

• A list of books here
• A mention in SD Times here

And more like that. I would rewrite the article from it's current crappy condition into something that incorporates your views as long as you can find some kind of backing for them. I agree that finding this sort of information in a reliable fashion is diffcult, and that the policy of Wikipedia to require relable, verifiable sources hinders what you can do with an article. That being said, if you can't find any way to fix this up, I'll show you how to prepare it for the deletions process. Not sure it meets the pertinent guideline WP:SOFTWARE and it's ad-like readign will almost surely get the thing deleted. An alternative to that is to cut the article down to a solid stub that only relates what the software is and why it's notable. If you have any questions, feel free to respond. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation -- Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-05 Censure for not changing Existing Content

I have opened the case for mediation, do you wish to proceed? Have you contacted the other parties to see if they are interested in mediation? Alan.ca 04:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am closing the case as you have not responded in 5 days. Alan.ca 06:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)