User talk:Kenj0418/archive1

There seems to be an edit war in progress over First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I am fairly new to wikipedia. Can you please take a look at the page and advise on proper steps to take next? DES 22:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted First Amendment to the United States Constitution back to the compromise version posted by DESiegel at 16:56, Feb 24, 2005. I have placed a discussion regarding the differing views regarding the content that should appear on this page on the article's talk page. Please view this page and the discussion there prior to making any substantive changes to this page. I am attempting to resolve this dispute with DESiegel's compromise version, and hopefully avoid formal dispute resolution (ie. page protection, mediation, arbitration, etc.).

(sent to all users editing the article since Feb 10, 2005: user_talk:DESiegel, user_talk:Pythagoras, user_talk:Kenj0418, user_talk:66.169.84.88, user_talk:68.209.177.180, user_talk:205.210.232.62)

Thank you for your assistance on this matter. DES 16:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up on my page. :) --jh51681 07:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Kenj0418 07:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that's what they meant by co-recursion. Corecursion is a category theory/computer science concept dual to recursion, so I think it's more likely that's what they had in mind. (There's some discussion of the topic at Talk:Recursion#Corecursion. -- Walt Pohl 06:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't know much about the subject, but I can at least create a stub. -- Walt Pohl 22:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am responding to your Mediation request. I have read your request, the articles in question and checked a few diffs, so as to see what everyone is trying to do, so we can start whenever you want. I would like to know whether you communicate with these anons at all - I have been checking the talk pages and there does not seem to be much. If there isn't, we will have to establish communication and possibly persuade them to open accounts, so that we can communicate with them more effectively and direct them to the talk pages. Mediation is a process of compromise within the limits of policy, so you will have to understand what they are trying to do (their agenda) and make proposals compatible with policy. Normally, they will have to do the same. Of course, every mediation is different, so we'll start and see where we end up. Izehar 23:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, agreement should be established between the registered users first. You have listed two other registered users apart from yourself who are involved, so, if you agree, we should contact them and agree on a reasonably NPOV version. In the meantime, we should ask the anons to participate, but I don't think they will. If you agree, let me know and I'll let them all know of the mediation and set up duplicate articles to work on. Izehar 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have asked the named registered users to comment on the named versions. I am thinking that this case may be too simple to require duplicate articles. If all registered users agree over the same versions, then any other users (registered or unregistered) will have to go through the proper channels to make controversial edits (ie use the talk page). They seem to have stopped anyway - but if they come back, if they make obviously biased edits and do not explain themselves, they will have to be reverted. I'll be keeping an eye on those pages to see if the anons come back and if they do, ask them to explain their edits. Izehar 10:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, could you please direct your attention in the St Stanislaus mediation case to its main page. Any comments should be made on the talk page Thanks. Izehar 23:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm thinking of closing the mediation case. You all seem to have agreed on the appropriate version and the only reason we kept it open was because BNA-WTTWA said that he/she would like to improve it. He/She hasn't edited for a week though. I would like to know if there is anything else you need (not that I've done much), or should I go ahead and close the case? Izehar 12:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Certainly :-) Izehar 23:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi!Many thanks for your comment concerning the Archbishop Burke article.I am working on the Archbishop Dolan article.If you have time,please take a look at it.Again,many thanks-RFD 12:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Someone vandalized the political philosophy page. not sure how to change it back. thanks

Many thanks for linking the RFT articles to the Diocese of La Crosse discussion section. I like being part of Wikipedia especially WikiProject Wisconsin.Thank you. I hope you are well.RFD 20:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

If no other admin removes the blacklist, I'll do it within 24 hours, although I might be criticized for it. There seems to be an unduly punitive attitude among some maintainers of the blacklist; like the site should be dead to us because they once employed a spammer. Anyhow, it'll be a good opportunity to finally migrate all representatives to {{CongLinks}}. And like I said, if we do ultimately decide against the links, we can remove them all at once by deleting one line of the template. Cool Hand Luke 08:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply