User talk:Icerat/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

google bombing mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Google_Bomb, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Google bomb. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

   does this warning also apply to the person who keeps reverting the edits? --Insider201283 19:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

       It applies to everyone (unless reverting vandalism, of course). But in this case, no one else seems to be in danger of violating 3RR (which you already have, btw). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

           I just checked and I think you're mistaken. There was a rewrite of the section, which was reverted by someone else with a factually false claim ("reported by a news outlet" - it wasn't). I then reverted this back to the original rewrite. This was then reverted again by someone else with a false POV claim, I again reverted. So that's only two reverts by me, and they were in response to reverts by others making provably factually inaccurate claims. --Insider201283 20:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

               Hey there. Further to your discussion with ZimZalaBim, it should be pointed out that you have already violated the Three Revert Rule. Futhermore, please note that this is a blocking offense and an admin may take action. Cheers. --Anthonycfc (talk • c • ama) Saturday, 21/Oct/2006 (UTC)

                   As I just explained, AFAIK I only reverted twice, could you explian what reverts you are talking about? --Insider201283 13:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
                   I have just double checked - THERE IS NOT THREE REVERTS. Could you both please explain your comments? --Insider201283 16:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

                       I was incorrect. You only reverted twice. But please don't use all caps, it is considered shouting and rude. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

                           I was shouting. I had twice been accused of something that was not true. That makes me shout :-). Thanks for the correction. --Insider201283 17:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Google bomb. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC).

Hello. I'd like to start mediation of this case, so I'd appreciate it if you'd mail me with an e-mail address that I can use to keep communications private. Thank you for your time. —Xyrael / 20:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility

I've noticed that editors are becoming less civil on Talk:Quixtar. I encourage you to set an example for patience, good manners, the assumption of good faith, and all around niceness. Civility is not an option, it's a requirement. WP:CIVIL. Cheers, -Will Beback · t · 08:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, sorry. Just getting sick of the constant accusations. --Insider201283 13:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Response

If you were not citing WP:EL then you were wrong to delete external links on the Quixtar page anyway. WP:RS is for sources that are used for statements in the body of the text. Your history shows deletes of external site links. I am starting to wonder if maybe you need to get a better handle on the two before you start making edits citing the wrong reasons. Independent patriot 15:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoy

Hi there. I was wondering if you're still around, as we haven't had e-mails from you regarding the mediation for quite some time. Is everything okay? If you no longer wish to proceed with the mediation that is fine, just let me know on my talkpage or through e-mail. I look forward to hearing from you. —Xyrael / 20:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply via e-mail and to me on here. However, I noticed that you put it on my userpage rather than usertalk - this means I very nearly missed it because it appeared under my blue layout. Just thought I'd let you know for future reference 8) —Xyrael / 21:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)