If you are going to post a comment on my talk page please keep in mind the tenets of wikilove and wikiquette. If you are deliberately rude to me I will probably ignore you, I may even delete your comment.

Archives: I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV

Each archive has 20 headings, including my archive heading, so each archive has 19 headings of conversation. The exception is archive IV which, for the time being, lost headings to the other archives when the archives were rearranged on April 1, 2005. Posts that I delete from my talk page are not included in the archives, however by and large even the rare heated exchanges are there.

Hey, J Carriker,

I think that you should be nominated for administration on Wikipedia. If you accept, please tell me on my talk page, and I'd be glad to nominate you. Take care, Horatii/Dbraceyrules 21:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the gesture, but I must inform you that I'm already an admin. If you'd like I can return the favor and nominate you at Rfa, in a few weeks. However I am currently pushing for a seat on the Mediation Committee, if you're interested in voicing your support for me there in the outside opinion section (only mediators can elect mediators). -JCarriker 21:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

lol, I didn't know you were an admn. I supported you on the Mediation Committee, but no thanks on being an administrator. I already use the computer at my house enough. Thanks anyway. Horatii/Dbraceyrules 21:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, I audited your tally of the VfD discussion. I documented my thoughts on your Sandbox page. (I hope that's where you wanted them. Please delete or move the comments if not.)

I really don't want to butt in because I don't know all the history and don't know if you have had interactions with some of the others in this discussion which were independent of the discussion threads I reviewed. My reaction as I read the various discussions was that you appear to be taking this issue quite personally - and I couldn't figure out why. I think I understand the arguments on both sides of this debate. My interpretation is that this is a "vision" question - you all are trying to decide if the article will be about the current "American West" or the historical "American West" and where you will draw that line. This is clearly a difficult decision because the term that is inherently ambiguous. Either way the decision is made, the article is likely to overlap with existing articles. It's the nature of a wiki that we sort them out through discussion, consensus and rather a lot of trial and error. I wish I could help but I have no opinion or relevant knowledge on the best way to organize this particular set of articles. Good luck. Rossami (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Mediation Committee! I've moved you from the nominations section to the active mediators section since the nomination was well supported and had no opposition in over a month. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation would be a good place to start. Good luck. :) Angela. 04:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. Saw her & an anon flash by together on my watchlist, but I was having more of a Latin American day than an Egyptian one. –Hajor 21:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am setting ground rules for this mediation and some things I want both of you to understand:

1. Assume good faith; if both of you are to reach a resolution you must learn to but the past behind you and work towards the future.

2. Since 80.??? IP is rotatting I must insist that he set up a user account, I can't preside over medidation if I can't decern the authenticity of contributions.

3.My talk page is not the proper forum for a mediation, the mediation will take place at Talk:Nick Adams.

4. I am a neutral party, I cannot and will not rule on the veracity of your arguements. I will try to facilitate an enviroment in which both of you can reach a mutual understanding, even if theat understanding is that mediation is not the best option for either of you.

5. If either of you wants outside opinions, that is what Wikipedia:Requests for comment is for, if you have both already have decided that a compromise is not possible with the other side— then your time would be better spent at Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. If you both desire to try to reach a compromise you have come to the proper venue.

1-3 are my ground rules, 4&5 are to help both of you better understand what mediation is and what my role will be. Thanks -JCarriker 05:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Understood and abided. Wyss 05:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have now created a Wikipedia account. I will be on vacation with my family the next two weeks. In the meantime, an administrator or mediator may decide if some details of my last edits are in line with the Wikipedia policies and may be reinstated. See [1] - [2] - [3]. Good luck and keep me postet on your progress. I will reply in detail later. Onefortyone 21:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx. It is harmless, but usless, so I will delete it as some trash (there is no User:Piotruś and this subpage was made by an anon). I wonder - how did you find it?? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do sockpuppet checks. Only David Gerard and Tim Starling have access to CheckUser to see the IPs of these users. However, using the "old-fashioned" approach of looking at user contributions, I'd say it's extremely unlikely they're the same person. I'll explain why by email. Angela. 03:10, July 24, 2005 (UTC)