User talk:CatherineMunro/Archive4

Wanted to add my welcome, and thanks for the help with DD-related work! I do a lot of work in this area too, and it's always nice to have another pair of eyes and hands around.
One thing -- we can't add just any photo scanned from a magazine (or found on the net), since the copyrights belong to the photographer. Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Image use policy for more details. If you believe the photos you've added can be legitimately used here, please provide more information on your reasoning and the sources of your images on the photo's Image description page; otherwise I'm afraid many of them are going to have to be deleted. It's a shame because you've put a lot of work into providing and placing great photos, but we have to be very careful to have legal rights to everything we put up here -- Wikimedia is a non-profit organization which can't afford to be sued over this.
I had to learn all this copyright stuff the hard way myself when I was looking for photos to put on the Duran Duran article (which is now a featured article, btw); the ones that are there now are press release photos, which Wikipedia has decided can be used if they're tagged with {{promophoto}} (one of the Wikipedia:image copyright tags). It's a tangled mess, but please ask on my talk page if it's unclear, and I'll do my best to answer questions.
Thanks for all the hard work! — Catherine\talk 20:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC) (aka artslave)

I'd like to thank you for the kind welcome message, and the tips regarding image copyright. I just have one quick question, though (apologies if this was covered in the articles you reccomended -- if so, I may have missed it somehow) -- if the photographer is unknown, should one link to where it was found on the internet, or delete it altogether?
Thank you in advance (:
-- Staring-Girl

Missing Persons

I posted a response on the Missing Persons page. Go ahead and address that when you get the chance. -- Mike Selinker

Mediation request

I have posted a request for mediation, and as I understand it, I'm expected to select a member of the Mediation Committee and ask them to serve. By flipping a multi-sided coin, I've picked you. Can you help us? Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Weblog.2C_User:Stevietheman.2C_User:robotwisdom.2C_User:Tverbeek. Tverbeek 05:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for mediation

I would like to submit to you a request for mediation regarding a user and administrator User:AndyL. This user has hijacked pages relating to the Canadian Monarchy to push his strong republican POV (demonstrated easily by his editing history), debate and discussion has no effect, and his attitude is bullyish and borderline offensive. There are two key areas where this is happening: on the Monarchist League of Canada page where he is trying to push his POV about the status of the Crown in Canada, and on Monarchy in Canada where he is trying to make his debate a part of the article.

I also might mention that he instigated a VfD for a page I created called Elizabeth II of Canada. While I don't object to that course of action, I do object to his reasoning which he stated on the related Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Elizabeth II of Canada page as being "page is redundant and created for a purely POV purpose." I was also accused by him of "vote interference," etc., etc. He also heavily edited the article, removing large portions of it, almost immediately after instigating the VfD, and thereby influencing the opinions of 'voters' on the article.

I put in a request for advocacy at the AMA, but it has not received a response. As well, I think AndyL's actions warrant a more serious intervention.

I have contacted User:AndyL about this request for mediation at his Talk page:User talk:AndyL]

I would be pleased if you could assist in bringing this issue to an amicable finish. Thank you, --gbambino 20:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Using copyrighted images - fair use / fair dealing

I was more than a little disturbed by your statements here which I will requote fully, as well as my response from Talk:7_July_2005_London_bombings:

Their license is NOT compatible with ours. Even if we counted as media, which we don't for their purposes, by uploading them here we'd be (at least perceived as) putting them under the GFDL and making them available for others to use under the GFDL, which is not Trackernet's intent. It's fine and very desirable to link there, and point out the important nature of the pictures, but we cannot upload and use the pictures here. — Catherine\talk 18:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we can since one can use images that are copyrighted under fair use so their 'license' has nothing to do with it. More than a few images are used on Wikipedia underfair use, as is quotes and other portions of copyrighted material. Reread my statements above and hopefully we can dispell ignorance on how we can use fairuse rights to the fullest extent (so they are not taken away). --ShaunMacPherson 21:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you may or may not know copyright has limits, they could have said "we do not authorize anyone who is white, or who likes cats from using our images" but that would not fly as copyright is not an unlimited right. They cannot do that - the power of copyright is limited and one of those limitations is individuals being able to use portions under fair use / fair dealing.

If we waive our fair use rights by default then they will be taken away, and since Wikipedia seems to be about freedom of information to individuals it is damaging when people advocate waiving fair use rights. Thanks for your time! --ShaunMacPherson 21:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate contributions

May I ask you to have a look at the Nick Adams page. I am sorry that there is an edit war going on. I have included two additional passages in the article, but User:Wyss and his alter ego User:Ted Wilkes have repeatedly deleted this text. Interestingly, both users seem to take turns in doing repeated reverts in order to delete what I have written, presumably to escape violation of the three revert rule. See Nick Adams, history. To my mind, both users are identical. They seem to use different IP addresses, which is possible, as in the past, User:DW, another of the many aliases of Wyss and Ted Wilkes, had repeatedly been banned. Significantly, a user has written on the User:Elliot page (one of the aliases of DW):

Isn't it amazing how much Elliot's contributions mirror DW's and Ron Davis's. Same refusal to answer questions. Same insistence that he is always right. Same vicious rudeness to anyone who dares to question his judgment. Maybe we could call them the Blessed Trinity, or maybe 'The Popes', given they seem to believe in their own infallibility.

This sounds as if it has been written against users Wyss and Ted Wilkes. See also the history of the User:Ted Wilkes page. Erroneously, Wyss has also contributed to that page. See [1]

Be that as it may, I have added these two passages to the Nick Adams page:

1. At about the same time Adams was also a close friend to Elvis Presley. This is confirmed by Red West, member of the 'Memphis Mafia' (pals and employees of Elvis), and Judy Spreckels, the platonic girlfriend of Elvis in the early days of the singer's career.
What is wrong with this passage? It should be added that there are photographs showing Elvis together with Adams. So it is quite clear that Adams and Elvis had been close friends at that time. See [2] and [3] Their friendship must be mentioned in the article. It is part of Adams's biography.
2. According to several sources, Adams had homosexual leanings. In his 2004 biography Natalie Wood: A Life, Gavin Lambert writes, "Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams..." In 1972, Sal Mineo stated that Adams told him that he had a big affair with James Dean. The book Elvis: The Hollywood Years (David Bret, 2002) even claims Elvis Presley was intimate with Adams. That the singer had an affair with Adams is also confirmed by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley. However there are no court records, contemporary letters or statements attributed to Adams to support the rumours that Adams was homosexual.
The reputed biographer Lambert, who also worked for many years as a Hollywood screenwriter, was a lifelong friend of Wood's. He was deeply involved in Hollywood's gay scene and must have known that Adams had homosexual leanings. It is also a fact that gay actor Sal Mineo was in close contact with both Adams and Dean. It should also be noted that in the Hollywood world Adams is more widely known for his contacts and affairs with other well-known stars than his acting career. So his affairs with James Dean and Elvis Presley are of much importance and should be mentioned in the article.
In my opinion, the last sentence, written by Wyss, is not necessary as many Hollywood homosexuals did not "out" themselves, but I am willing to make this concession to user Wyss. I have only cited what is written in independent books and articles (see Talk:Nick Adams). I think this is in line with the Wikipedia guidelines, as administrator User:Ed Poor said:
unless an assertion is utterly uncontroversial, it's going to need some back-up. Especially, if one of more contributors challenge the assertion. Then, it's better to move the disputed passage to the article's associated talk page.
A good way to deal with disputed ideas is to attribute an assertion to a source. Like:
Nick Adams says James Dean screwed Natalie Wood while Elvis watched (note: this is a made-up example); or,
Nick Adams says Elvis Presley paid X to cover up his homosexual affairs with Y and Z (another made-up example)
Note the common theme here. Wikipedia is not saying Adams [in the made-up example] is right, it's merely passing along his claims clearly attributed to him.

I think I have accurately cited my sources. In addition, gay biographer David Ehrenstein, who has written a book on Hollywood gays, sent me an email in which he confirmed the assertion that Adams was gay (see Talk:Nick Adams). As an expert, he must have used several sources which prove that Adams had homosexual leanings. I am the person involved in this edit war who frequently cites different sources which all prove that Adams was gay, and Wyss/Ted Wilkes is the person who is constantly disparaging these sources - in lack of further evidence supporting his view. Indeed, user Wyss is unable to cite any sources which undoubtedly prove that Adams was heterosexual. I don't know what else I can do. May I ask for mediation?

The edit war continues. It has now reached a critical point, as it has also been transferred to the Gavin Lambert article. May I again ask for help? Thanks. 80.141.180.79 11:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidate

Could very obscure and unknown bands become featured article candidates if the article was very good? Jobe6 01:58, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Medcom

Please update Template:MedComOpenTasks (list current cases) and Template:Medcom#Active_Mediators (add * for each current case) to reflect your current status. Sinreg, -St|eve 22:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC) P.S. New rules in testing: No absolute consensus for mediation, (else to WP:RFAR), and MC:Chair assignment of mediators, rather than disputant agreement (given no confict)[reply]

PPS:Would you be able to assist WP:RFM#Democratic Peace Theory. -SV

Hi, I'm sorry to comment in the middle of your talk page; but the dispute, which has now also spread to Criticisms of communism badly requires mediation, and I'm not sure it can wait another month. I am one of the parties, but the other one has expressed willingness for mediation both on RfM, per Steve's link, and at the bottom of Talk:Criticisms of communism. I can fully understand why Steve has been too busy to bug you about this, but I have to. Septentrionalis 23:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Process question regarding Move to Wiktionary

Hi Catherine -

What is the process when one disagrees with the addition of the "move to wiktionary" tag? The case in point is the article take, which currently has both cleanup and move to wiktionary tags added. In my view this is a perfectly legitimate, concise encyclopedia entry; the context that is given and the supporting detail move it beyond a simple dicdef.

So, what do I do? Just delete the tag? Argue about it on the talk page? There doesn't seem to be the equivalent of a vfd page for this process. If the only answer is "expand the article", then I have a bit of a concern since it seems rather arbitrary to have one person's judgement demand action without a clear consensus.

I come to you rather than the person who originally added the tag because they appear to have left temporarily. Thanks.

Jgm 12:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did more or less as you suggested (took care of the clapboard problem as well). But I was really at least equally interested in the process question; does one really have to "adopt" an article to disagree with a move-to-wikctionary tag? Thanks. Jgm 02:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Administration Rights

I have a questions for yourself:

  1. Am I eligible for admin rights?
    1. If so, how do I go about applying for them?
    2. If not, what is prohibitting me?

--Celestianpower talk 13:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for eavesdropping. According to Kate, you have 1,071 edits, which is good, and your earliest edit was at least 3 months ago, which is also fairly good, (but everyone has their own opinions about how much "time in" is needed). Please read the top of WP:RFA, where the proceedure for nomination is explained. Func( t, c ) 15:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

I'd like to request a review of the user page of User:Noitall. The user features some rather blatant personal attacks towards me and other editors at the top of his page that I feel violates Wikipedia policy, and would like your opinion on this, as well as an opinion on dealing with the problem. My specific complaints are the following comments the user makes:

Darwin May Not Have Been Right – Some editors go to great lengths to prove that not all of mankind fully evolved. For instance, see the conspiracy nuts who edit the topic 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories.

Refering to editors and saying they are under evolved is a direct insult and personal attack.

Stupidist Reference to Google: On the Lincoln (disambiguation) page, one editor (actually, a vandal, but the story is too humorous) actually argued that Lincoln, Nebraska was more prominent than President Abraham Lincoln based on Google results. By the way, Lincoln, Nebraska started out as the village of Lancaster before being named after the President. How many miniseries feature Lincoln, Nebraska (boy, that would be exciting!)? Did Lincoln, Nebraska really save the Union? How many monuments are in the most prominent place in Washington, D.C. named for Lincoln, Nebraska? By the way, where is Lincoln, Nebraska?

The above is a personal attack directed at me. In addition to calling it stupid, he decides to refer to me as a vandal, an untrue comment (his accusations of vandalism were directed at my informing him on his talk page of a (later abortive) RfC) and personal attack.

And of course the other instances there as well.

Thanks for your help, Agriculture 00:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please advice urgently

Dear Admin,

User --Ragib and --Mel Etitis are contionusly vandal the article rohingya. please see it in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rohingya&action=history. Such Violaton shall be stop . please keep wiki standard updated .violations would not be accepted by any reader of wikipedia . go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism. please advice. Thanks, --Bobjack 14:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the welcome back. I've taken a long enough break and have jumped back in with both feet.  :) As long as certain other users seem to be less involved than they were when I left, I'll be happy (for a while any way). Zoe 18:56, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hi! and Bye!

Long time no talk! Have a fun wikibreak, Catherine. :) Func( t, c, e,  ) 00:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celebration!

Champagne is often drunk as part of a celebration

Please join me in celebrating my 1000th edit at Wikipedia, the most important online information resource! Hamster Sandwich 21:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request for Jodie Foster entry-Unnecessary changes by Mr. Patadybag

Since you are may be familiar with the Jodie Foster entry website and are a mediator, I would like to req. some mediation assistance on the multiple reverts/deletion from the website site regarding the link/subheading on Ms. Foster's ad work in Japan. If you could please check the current Talk page on J. Foster and this link [edits made by Patadybag] (as well as the history page) for background info. I feel Mr. Patadybag has made multiple reverts/deletion of pertinent relevant info which I put in a small paragraph/subheading at the end of the article. I really have tried to talk to Patadybag but he seems stubborn in making minor unfair changes which deletes interesting pertinent info. on J. Foster. I really feel I've tried to reach a compromise and be reasonable (see talk/history page). Any help would be greatly appreciated. I would go through the normal med. channels but there seems a great backlog at this time. Thanks a lot. 66.248.121.159 13:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hello, CatherineMunro! I recently expressed my interest in becoming a mediator with Uncle Ed, and he encouraged me to apply. Thus, I've done so at WP:MC. Also, he asked me to propose a new mediation format that would make the process go smoother; I have created such a page at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Proposed. Here are my ideas for mediation:

  1. Every mediator will have an office (similar to the desks used at the cleanup taskforce), at User:MEDIATOR/Office. This is where s/he will place all the current mediation.
  2. Every mediation case will be on a subpage, at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/PARTY 1 and PARTY 2. Thus, we can just put {{Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/...}} on the WP:RfM page and in the mediator's office.
  3. Each case must first be approved by a mediator. Both parties MUST have agreed to mediation, as I beleive it's fruitless to mediate if one party is unwilling to settle their differences. Only a brief summary, without diffs or links to pages, will be accepted before the case is approved. The case may also be rejected or referred to the arbcom. In addition, both parties MUST agree to the goals of the mediation. (Again, I feel it's fruitless to mediate if both parties don't know what they are negotiating for)
  4. Once approved, the next mediator without a case will take the assignment. In other words, the task will automatically move to an open office. If there are several open offices, it will go to the one which has been open the longest. If there are no open offices, it will go to one with the least cases/longest time on a case (if this wording isn't clear, see the "Open Tasks" thing at the right of the proposed page). Thus, there will be no "picking and choosing" of cases, streamlining the process. (An exception will be made if a mediator is an involved party).
  5. Then the mediator will work with the parties... this is the actual mediation part.
  6. The case can then be closed by the mediator- if both parties have met the goals, then the case is successful. Otherwise, the mediator can dismiss the case or recommend it to the arbcom.

I hope that makes sense; let me know what you think. I look forward to becoming a mediator! Thanks a lot for your help. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost article

Don't worry about it! I had started writing it offline but then saw you had already done it. Looks excellent, far better than mine would have been. the wub "?/!" 23:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was so good, do you want to write it again for the Sep 19 issue? Leave a note either way in the Newsroom. the wub "?/!" 10:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up the pieces

Hi, Catherine. I've seen your good work "from afar," so we haven't "met" as yet on WP. Regarding Jobe, do you realize he's just had a failed RFA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jobe6) that, based upon his user talk archive, seems to be hewn to a literal interpretation of your (friendly) advice (given twice) to him from July 2005. He seemed overeager then, and in fact did self nominate for RFA. I tried to give him some constructive pointers on how to win my vote in the future (note that he doesn't have to share my political or spiritual beliefs, but he has to be trustworthy). Anyways, I'm concerned he might just pack up and leave. Do you want to contact him about the issue? (Not trying to make more work for you, in doing that. . . I would be willing to be a helpful "Wikiguide" if he would be willing to take me in as one. . . . but I fear he might not "cotton" to me after my "Oppose" vote on his RFA.) Your kind thoughts? --avnative 12:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Javascript gizmo

I made a little thingy for adding licenses - there's a note on MediaWiki_talk:Licenses but I thought I'd let you know here in case you missed it. To install it, you repeat the procedure for installing the popups but change popups.js to addlicense.js (twice). Lupin|talk|popups 14:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I occassionally find citations from time to time, just wondering where to direct them for the Signpost roundup. - RoyBoy 800 03:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost article

Sorry I missed your second article this week...you just missed when I published (looks like a 3 minute difference). I'm planning on publishing it this week, then. Also, I'd be interested in your opinion on a plan that I have to redesign the Signpost based loosely on Wikinews' design. Ral315 17:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your photo

Your photo Image:Cathmunro.jpg is listed on unfree images for deletion. Any chance you could replace it with a free one instead? Justinc 17:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MedCom

Hello, you are one of the 7 remaining active medcom members. I have immensely decluttered the WP:RFM page. Now I would like to start assigning people to cases. If you do not have the time for this, please remove yourself from the active listings. I hope that we can become active again, and we won't need WP:TINMC to cover for us as they have. Please check RfM frequently as I may be assigning you. And of course you can always turn down cases and choose your own, its not some kind of the-leaders-make-you-do-what-they-say deal... anywho, just saying I'm trying to revive the medcom. Thanks, Redwolf24 (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hello, Catherine Munro! Thanks for your support of my mediation committee nomination; I'm pleased to join you as a mediator. Thanks once again. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 20:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Don't worry about it. I had checked your contributions, and noticed you hadn't edited in a few days, so I figured something must have come up. No worries :) Ral315 WS 00:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CCH Pounder

Thanks for the message; I moved the article because the text gave both versions, so I thought that it was best to use the one that fitted normal naming conventions. From what you say, the balance in fact tips the other way. I'll change it back. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Sinuation comedy"... there's a laboured pun in there somewhere, that my fingers might have been aware of, but not my will. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost article

Hi, I'm not sure if you're doing a news roundup this week, but in case you are, I thought I'd mention that I've written a separate article on the Nicholas Carr blog post that prompted some reaction this past week. Feel free to add to my work or mention it as appropriate, I just didn't want you to feel like you've wasted time duplicating the same work. By the way, thanks so much for your writing efforts and your work in keeping The Signpost going. --Michael Snow 05:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry on the article; I've still got the arbitration report and an Esperanza article to go. But what you've got now looks very good. Ral315 WS 18:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Request for mediation in progress

Hello Catherine Munro--

I have begun the procedure to get mediation for the article titled "Aesthetic Realism." Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy that joins art and life in a new way. I hope my request will be successful, and that you will be able to mediate. According to the Wikipedia guidelines, I am supposed to get the agreement of my opponent so we both call for mediation. I am waiting for a reply but thought I would at least alert you to what is going on.

My username is Samivel. The opposing party consists of three (Michael Bluejay, Outerlimits, and Marinero) who all agree with each other. But I disagree vehemently with all three of them.

What I wrote on the Talk page for the article on Aesthetic Realism is this:

As I read how several individuals (Bluejay, Marinero, Outerlimits) are talking over how to misrepresent a valuable philosophy and the people who teach it, I also am calling for mediation.
I too think the article should be frozen at the point where responsible editors left it.
And therefore I will revert it to that point.
The first step in mediation is to ask the opposing party if it is willing to have mediation. Bluejay, Marinero, Outerlimits, are you willing to have mediation? [Signed]

If you look at the talk page you will see how these individuals talk amongst themselves. To me, it is chilling.

I will be glad to answer any questions you may have. --Samivel 21:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am posting an exact copy of this message to you on Redwolf24's talk page, since he is the acting chair of the committee. --Samivel 21:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Active Case?

Hello, I'm sending this to the five of you with cases listed as active in the active tasks template. Just wondering which of you still have it active and how you're doing with it... Please message me on my talk, or email me if you see fit. Thanks :) Redwolf24 (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Jimbo Wales to Attend San Diego Meetup on October 18 2005

Hello, Catherine. Thanks for joining the San Diego Meetup that I just created at meetup.com. I haven't finalized that registration yet. When I realized they will automatically charge my credit card $20/month to keep the group going, I started to rethink it. I'm not sure we really need their services since we have ways of contacting Wikipedians within Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm really promoting mainly a one-time event. If it turns into regular meetings that would be great, but it's not my focus at this time. The event is that Jimbo Wales will be in San Diego to attend OOPSLA and has agreed to come by and visit with the San Diego wikipedians. If you are interested, you will find more info on my talk page. Johntex\talk 17:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Details on the Meetup

I went to the Town and Country area last night to check out restaurants. I've eaten at the restaurants in Town and Country and they weren't that great, ao I wanted to find us somewhere nearby. There is a nice but expensive steak house down the street, but I don't know what everyone's budget is. I picked this place, I hope it is OK with everyone:

  • 7:00pm Tuesday October 18th
  • 24-Hour Valley Kitchen Family Restaurant
  • 875 Hotel Circle South, Mission Valley, 619-819-1017 or 619-298-8282.
  • It is right across Highway 8 from the Town and Country Resort and Convention Center
  • It is very casual and comes highly recommended by the hotel desk. Entrees are $8-$15. They have a wide menu: They have breakfast all-days, salads, burgers, steaks, echilladas, pies, that sort of place.

See you there! Johntex\talk 01:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of Dispute between Nixer and E Pluribus Anthony ... to RfM project page!

Hello! I hope you're well. As you may know, I initiated a request for mediation, mediated by you, regarding User:NixerNixer and relevant edits. All parties are working on a resolution to the dispute and (hopefully) should be able to close this case soon; however, we haven't concluded our mediation just yet.

So, you may be surprised to know that this RfM was removed from the RfM page! I cannot see any reference to it on the RfM project page except as being 'archived.' Again: while both parties are working on a resolution to the dispute, we have not successfully concluded our discussions/work ... nor have you (as the mediator) indicated this (to my knowledge).

Thus, this issue remains unresolved. As this mediation is still active, could you please have it restored as before? (If there is some other reason for this 'archiving,' please let me know.) Thanks for your mediation and co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony 01:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I took it upon myself to restore this RfM to the project page. If you've any questions or if I've erred somehow (though I do not see how), please contact me. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 05:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

News and notes

No problem, really...I understand that your family comes first. Hope that the medical issues get resolved successfully. Ral315 (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Login

My Wikipedia name is WikiRat and I am unable to log in. I suspect the registered email is for some out of date account. How do I go about changing the email associated with my account?

Deletion

Hello, I have recently created a page called: Mitchell church of Christ, but I have decided that I don't want the page on Wikipedia after all, and I was hoping that you could delete it for me. Please let me know! Thank You Jay 03:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I just wanted to thank you for deleting my page (Mitchell church of Christ) for me. I wish I could do that kind of thing myself, but I'm not an administrator. Well, Thanks again for your help. Jay 19:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]