User talk:Xavexgoem/archive8

Latest comment: 10 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 19 February 2014

Deletion discussions edit

Hello, I'd like to understand better why the article Ancestry of John Seymour of Sawbridgeworth was deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talkcontribs) 19:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

There was a broad consensus to delete. If you think it can be salvaged – bearing in mind the worries that other editors expressed – I can move the article to a subpage so you can continue working on it. It won't be on WP proper, but maybe you can improve it to a point where it won't be deleted. Let me know. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Sal's Pizza (Dallas) was deleted without any discussion of the suitability of the gayot.com link, which is a non-local source. Pawsplay (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Delete was the general consensus. I can restore the content to a subpage for you to work on, if you'd like. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Muhammad RFC edit

Hi Xav, not sure if I showed you already or not, but you may possibly find the format in this RFC useful? Best of luck :-) Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 20:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sort of, but maybe it's too broad? I believe everyone in the dispute is aware of the policies and the general community consensus. I'm hoping it can be narrowed down more. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, it's really the structure that counts, what's being commented on can be different (doesn't have to be about policy). The key point is that it's different to a normal RFC, which in my opinion has little structure and is comprised on users making statements and others endorsing them. It can really be as narrow or as broad as you want it, you just need to change the section headers to what is being discussed. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 19:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
To be sure, the RfC will be very structured. In that respect, your RfC is perfect :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hmm...well, I have the case watchlisted, so poke me if you need anything. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 20:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Concerning page formatting, I suggest that technical RFC pages should have more pronounced warnings using {{ambox}} instead of just bold text; this would help avoid errors like this one when a user confused the intro subpage with subpages for actual discussion. I'm not sure where to discuss this, so I trust you to move this motion forward. Dmitry (talkcontibs) 07:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Co-mediating the Muhammad case edit

Would you mind getting some help on the case? PaoloNapolitano 18:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'd like someone with a bit more experience. In particular, I'm worried about "There is no Wiki but Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales is its Prophet" on your user page (which would be ok in almost any other dispute; here, it's a little too cheeky) and this diff. I'm worried that you think its important whether editors in the dispute are Muslim, and that that constitutes a significant COI. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I see that, and I respect your decision. The user page sentence is something I came up with myself, it is not in any way intended to be anti-Islamic. While I am a conservative, I am not anti-Islam in any way, and the question was, ironically, posed to find out if any of the users involved did have personal beliefs that could affect their editing. Any abuse as a result of outing oneself as a Muslim would be a blatant personal attack subject to a lengthy block. PaoloNapolitano 15:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

MSU Interview edit

Dear Xavexgoem,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Young June Sah--Yjune.sah (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Card and delays edit

The statement about Card's contribution leading to the anthology being late is taken from a posting by Marvin Kaye on the Publishers Weekly official blog. DS (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Inre Your John Kerry VVAW Controversy Delete Determination edit

Given the extensive editing I had accomplished in the provision of WP:V, WP:RS sourcing for this article content and the rescission of the prior merge determination at my behest to accommodate a more fully credible closure, your "delete" determination has, quite frankly, left me flabbergasted. I am going to allow some time for proper reflection before deciding on what course of action to pursue inre your closure but, in the interim, I would appreciate access to the existing article content as composed prior to your deletion which, if I understand correctly a discussion above, can be made available. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the provision of access to the deleted article. Having little prior experience in AfD matters, is the prior talk page content/archive (if any) also available? Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ah, right. Sorry. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Xavexgoem. You volunteered to close Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism#RfC - Should spreadingsantorum.com be hyperlinked within the article body and/or "External Links"? at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Campaign for "santorum" neologism RFC close request. I have started a new subsection at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Triumvirate for the closing admins to discuss the close. Thank you for volunteering for this difficult task. I wish you the best of luck. Cunard (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just a note, I've developed my opinion of the consensus and I am ready to discuss when you are.--v/r - TP 13:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Sure thing. Just give me about half a day (sleep) Xavexgoem (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Just a heads up, we're both ready. Just let us know when you are.--v/r - TP 22:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Talkback edit

 
Hello, Xavexgoem. You have new messages at Talk:Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism/Triumvirate.
Message added 04:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

v/r - TP 04:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Santorum edit

Just want to make sure that you agree with [1]. T. Canens (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Muhammad edit

Hi Xavex. I don't know how closely you've been watching the mediation, but there has been some progress, with a subpage set up to compile the RfC. However, there doesn't seem to be a shared understanding of how that should work. My view is that this page should only be edited in line with consensus formed in the mediation. Perhaps you share that view or perhaps you don't, but it would be good to get some guidance. FormerIP (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

As an alternate point of view, it's looking like FormerIP started a discussion, declared 48 hours of conversation as "consensus", is now declaring any alternate views as disruptive, and is immediately reverting any changes. So yes, I think having a mediator would be helpful at this point. --Elonka 23:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Looking at it. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Since it's looking like I'm going to be shouted down, shall I just withdraw from the mediation? I really don't have time for a lengthy discussion, sorry. --Elonka 00:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm hoping there's an easy compromise. I can't guarantee it won't be discussed at length. It's up to you. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I'll stay in. However, life calls, and I'll be offline for as much as 24 hours. Good luck in the meantime! --Elonka 00:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply


If you wish to collapse anything, I won't object. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please see the bottom of the mediation page. As this is a question concerning mediation policy, your input is needed. If you have to consult other mediators, that would be fine. If I have to appeal this somewhere let me know. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi X. If you could do this, it may help:User talk:Alanscottwalker#Civility. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! edit

Thanks for helping out with the RFC. I'm more interested in putting this behind us than I am finding any one 'exact' solution. So it's really good to see people working on this.

I was also very tempted to try a "philosophical" approach to this dispute, and long ago though the better of it. People consense best when they discuss a middleground between the lofty and the mundane. Good work . --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Mediation Cabal: Case update edit

 

Dear Xavexgoem/archive8: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 February 2012/Muhammad-images

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Xavexgoem, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've been inactive from Wikipedia for a week or so but how come this case is inactive rather than closed? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Just in case. I'll close it. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dispute resolution survey edit

 

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Xavexgoem. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Mediation about T-Square case edit

Hi, about this case [2]. I filed the case when there was a flurry of changes and little discussion; subsequently the page benefited a lot from the input of uninvolved editors (being the main featured page for the day helped). At the moment there is low-level discussion and some disagreement, but things have died down considerably. Then there are two more things: probably if any mediation is necessary, it should just be between two editors, not the gaggle that I enlisted, two of whom were not really involved. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this appears to be a behavioral issue rather than strictly a content one. So at the moment the whole thing is up in the air. Perhaps we should just put it on ice indefinitely, and see if later on it would be wise to initiate mediation. What do you think? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, mediation is not necessary. There's nothing happening on the page and the dispute--such as it was--was a behavioral one and not a content one. Let's cancel the request and allow me to please apologize for the trouble. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Quick Question edit

What was the case you were referring to in my MedCom nomination discussion? I'd be happy to open it if you point me in the right direction.  

Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think Sunray is picking it up, but there may be room for more, not sure. You'll get filled in when you're on the list. Edit: Be sure to email WgFinley. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, just emailed him. Lord Roem (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply


Close edit

Hi. Hope all is well with you. It seems you might be the logical choice to "end" the Muhammad images discussion (by that I mean physically "lock" the RfC on the 19th/20th) (as you opened it) and also find/advertise for the three uninvolved? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm probably not going to full prot it, but I will recruit the three admins tomorrow. I might not be available when I said I'd end it (I think it's at 23:59?), but I don't think a few hours will hurt anything. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
I guess, I wasn't thinking full prot but the close template, with a temporary note that consensus is being assessed, as was done in the Verifiability RfC. Thanks again for your work on this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Do you do anything when someone edits the closed RfC? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry about it. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
You may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Muhammad images should be closed, yes? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

How do I communicate with you privately? Offender9000 (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Private edit

I don't understand what your role is in the dispute about the NZ Corrections Department. How do I communicate with you privately? Offender9000 (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

 
Hello, Xavexgoem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A kitten for you! edit

 

Thank you for your hard work on the recent mediation case I was involved in.

Stuartyeates (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I watched the mediation process with great interest, and applaud you for your efforts.
I am unsure what if any action to take over recent comments at Talk:Department of Corrections (New Zealand) where the results of the mediation are used to criticise an editor. I feel this breaches your final comments that "anything said here cannot be used in any other fora on WP."-gadfium 08:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
This is also being used in dispute resolution. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Noted. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Reply


RFC discussion of User:Offender9000 edit

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Offender9000 (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Offender9000. -- Stuartyeates (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Irean Anders (Renata Bogdanska) edit

Dear Madam / Sir,

Re: Irena Anders (Renata Bogdanska)

A friend recently researched the life of Mrs Irena Anders who was married to Polish General Wladyslaw Anders (of Battle for Monti Casino, Italy fame). As it turned out she was born to two very nationalistic Ukrainian parents and during the Second World War she decided to become Polish. She and her Polish General husband became 'the' Icons of Polish resistance during the Cold War era. Both her parents were 'hardcore' Ukrainian nationalists which it appears that a contributor to the site about her seems to want to eradicate. The evidence of her past was produced by B.N. of Great Britan and he developed this research into two YouTube clips. Much of the supporting evidence was provided by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Institute of Church History in Lviv, Ukraine which was able to provide ample evidence of her Ukrainian roots. After all, her father was a priest, as was her uncle and many other relatives. Worth noting is that priest in the Eastern Rite (Greek) of the Catholic Church are permited to get married and have children.

I have been slowly changing the web site about Irene Anders to include her 'Ukrainian roots'. As soon as I make the changes, there is a contributor who removes my edits. Clearly, this person does not want the public to know about Mrs Anders Ukrainian roots. Can you please mediate this matter since I would like to greatly expand the profile to include many details about her past which have been posted in these two clips:

Irene Anders / Renata Bogdanska - Ukrainian Dimension http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBLqCiWqQ9M

Irene Anders / Renata Bogdanska - Polish Dimension http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqGTgIMqIV4

Please let me know your thoughts. You can contact me at:

polyfilaman@yahoo.com

Thank you

Michael Brytan (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Michael. Have you talked with the editor on the article's talk page? According to the this edit, it appears that the other editor is deleting the Ukrainian information because it's not supported by the current sources. Do you have a textual source that says she's Ukrainian? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Request edit

Hello Xavexgoem, I hope you are well. You may or may not be aware, but there have been recent discussions on WP:Legality of Israeli settlements in one of the IPCOLL pages, with one of the discussions ending in "no consensus" on keeping/removing the sentence, and one of them being an RFC on starting an RFC. Sandstein suggested, in his close of the first and in a follow up question that I asked that a new RFC be set up. In a few comments with No More Mr Nice Guy on that IPCOLL page, and also his talk page, we talked about setting up an RFC and ways to do so. Would you be willing to be one of three admins to help close this RFC? Moonriddengirl has agreed to be one of those three. Please let me know. Thanks, nableezy - 05:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours. edit

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

DRN volunteer of the week edit

  DRN volunteer of the week barnstar
This is for your hard work in rewriting the volunteer page - picking up the slack from me. Thanks again for all your work :-) Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Question on bot edit

See question re Bot in Question on title of the List section in DRN Talk page. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Replied. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Sanity checks edit

I'm off to bed - see what you can do? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 13:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

PIGS edit

I don't see any route for agreement with Naumakos. I could throw references at that talk page all day and it would do no good. I've added your suggestion to the article. Thanks for your assistance.

Regards, --RA (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

 
Hello, Xavexgoem. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you! edit

  The Teamwork Barnstar
You always provide sensible and helpful comments. Your presence is appreciated! Noleander (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thank you :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion edit

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:DNR regarding a dispute on the article PIGS (economics). Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:PIGS (economics)".The discussion is about the topic PIGS (economics). Thank you! --RA (talk) 08:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

DRN needs your help! edit

Hey there Xavexgoem, I noticed you've listed yourself as a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard but you haven't been very active there lately - I was hoping if you had some spare time if you could take a look there and offer some assistance. Thanks again for your help :-) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm taking a break. You can remove me if you want. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1) edit

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

 
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC edit

Because of your interest in dispute resolution,, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

This dispute has been going on for over ten years and there have been over 1,300,000 words posted on the article talk page (by comparison, all of the Harry Potter books together total 1,084,170 words). Over the years the dispute has been through multiple noticeboards, mediators, and even the Arbitration Committee without resolving the conflict, so a lot of wisdom is needed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Correct word? edit

Hi. You posted a comment at an RfC today "I'm curious how it appears democratic ...". It looks like perhaps you meant to say "bureaucratic". No big deal, just letting you know. --Noleander (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dispute Resolution RFC edit

Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

Request for assistance edit

Hello. Saw your name at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance. I, along with some other editors, have been having trouble with editor User:GreatOrangePumpkin. My efforts at trying to improve the basic English grammar and point out citations issues on the article Fyodor Dostoevsky have been met with stonewalling and hostile reverts. He appears to have some serious ownership issues and regularly engages in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If a discussion gets to a point where his response becomes the critical turning point he just ignores the whole issue, hoping for it to go away. Maybe you can sense my frustration in the way I'm telling this but please bear with me. To the point: can you take a look at Talk:Fyodor_Dostoyevsky from the legacy section to the bottom and offer some advice on how I should proceed? I really am at my wits end. Many thanks. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dispute resolution volunteer survey edit

 

Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite


Hello Xavexgoem. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

DRN Regarding Syrian Civil War edit

Hey Xavexgoem, thought you might be interested in an active DRN case on the Syrian civil war considering your involvement in the RfM. You can find it here WP:DRN#Syrian civil war. Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 08:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Talk:List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012) characters edit

Hi, Xavexgoem, I appreciate your feedback at Talk:List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012) characters. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mediate edit

As a participant in WikiProject Alternative Views I invite you to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal (2nd nomination)[3]. For an entity such as this who has gained global noterity to even be considered for deletion is beyond my understanding.Kmt885 (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

DRN organisers edit

Hello. I am just letting you know that I've made a proposal to create a rotating DRN organiser-style role that would help with the day-to-day running of DRN. As you are a listed volunteer at DRN, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and the other open proposals at DRN. You can read more about it here. Thanks! Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Interac_(Japan) edit

I could use some help with Interac_(Japan) since I'm finding it hard to move ahead. Please see my notes on the Talk page.61.120.17.197 (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)61.120.17.197 (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 20 May 2013 edit

Ancient history edit

Hi there. Sorry to waste your time with ancient history but in relation to this edit: [4] Offender is still referencing the failed mediation in a manner which other people can't counter because of being bound by the privileged nature of mediation. Instead of yet another telling-off, is there any chance that privilege can be vacated from that proceeding (and that proceeding only) so that the argument can be countered? Not a huge issue if it can't be, but thought it might be worth checking to see. Thanks for your time. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

He's been indef blocked. I don't see the need, and it's probably best to just walk away. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 27 May 2013 edit

The Signpost: 05 June 2013 edit

The Signpost: 12 June 2013 edit