User:Anthere/Vide Poche

Mediation[edit]

Hello. Well, I suppose that indicates you are still interested :-) It would be nice that we have an email adresse so the MC can directly contact you. It is much easier than going to each one wikimail.
There is work ongoing on guidelines and rules right now. You may either participate on that matter actively, or give your opinion on the various points (comment on meta as well if you wish).

(there has not been much on the ml about that topic recently, except for Jimbo that we should progress on the matter :-))

Thanks for reminding me of your admiration for my mediating skills, which I suppose I earned from the little bit of mediation I did around Gaia Theory. There's not a lot of gratitude or praise that gets expressed around here, especially compared to all the arguing, and so I appreciate your compliments a lot. Now that you mention it, I think I'd liked to have been on the arbitration committee, but I don't think I'd like to give up my anonymity (e.g. if my name got out, George Bush would send people to my cave in Afghanistan and they'd take me some place where there are no Internet connections). Also, I don't think my reputation here is only for peace, love and understanding (to quote Elvis Costello), so in the end I doubt I'd have been invited to arbitrate. 168... 03:27, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Did I err?[edit]

Was it bad of me to remove my comment on wikipedia:requests for mediation? I felt later that I had mispoken. Is there some better way to handle this? Jack 06:00, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think it is perhaps inappropriate to remove the middle of a discussion like this. It tends to make discussions look very weird. Not anyone will appreciate perhaps looking like a fool talking to himself :-)

Perhaps would have it been better to just wait

or to write below that the discussion was no more relevant, so we could entirely remove it ?

just my fellings.

should I put it back? I don't want to do anything to be provacative, so any advice on whats best to do now is appreciated. Thank you... Jack 06:28, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My e-mail address[edit]

The address is fine, but the providers mailserver had an 8 hour long maintenance break. :-( Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 06:37, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

Ecological succession[edit]

Anthere, an anonymous user has made some additions which has the whiff of self-promotion in the ecological succession article. I moved the offending material to Talk:ecological succession, in the hope that somebody more knowledgeable in ecology could have a look at it. From my limited ecology background, it looks somewhat dubious but has some salvageable content in it. Have a look if you get the chance and let me know what you think. Thanks. --Lexor 14:18, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am around, but I'll be gone again soon, but back again soon too. :) Angela . 16:37, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

They didn't look like reasonable discussions to me. They looked like one person's idiosyncratic rants. But, if you want them there, keep them. I'm sorry if the redirects upset you. Angela . 09:46, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

Alexander Lukashenko[edit]

Anthere, thanks for putting a (temporary?) end to the edit war. What do you propose now? Given the entrenched positions that seem to have emerged here, I'm not too hopeful that a compromise can be worked out between the editors without someone else giving a "ruling", if that's the appropriate term to use. Please give us some advice on Talk:Alexander Lukashenko! -- ChrisO 18:16, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My new nickname[edit]

Well! since you now use fr0069 as your nickname, I suppose other Wikipedians will not confuse me with you if I use this: Antherius :) Since masked usernames are not prohibited, from now on I will use Antherium as my nick whenever I post a message or a vote! :) (just kidding)

If I couldn't work out what "Anthere" meant, how do you expect me to work out what "fr0069" means? Maybe I should start a Campaign for Comprehensible Nicknames. ;-) -- ChrisO 15:25, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Koyaanis Qatsi[edit]

Hackwork I did; anyone could have done it. Ctrl+C, ctrl+v. ^_^ Koyaanis Qatsi 21:26, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ecological succession[edit]

Hi, you said on VfD you had taken some parts of Vegetation succession and put them in Ecological succession and that you wanted the redirect deleted. To preserve the authors of the parts you moved, I've put the page history at Talk:Ecological succession/Page history so the redirect could be deleted. Hope that makes sense. :) Angela . 11:07, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, so I didn't need to bother moving it there at all? Oh well, I suppose it might as well stay there now. It's just a subpage of a talk page anywyay. Angela . 19:51, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

No, actually you did not need to bother. Sorry you took the time :-( I hope the guy comes back in a more constructive way :-) fr0069

incivility[edit]

"do not complain...previously, it was uncivility... :-)" - :\ -戴&#30505sv 20:20, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I was not complaining, merely smirking. Uncivility>Incivility>civility. The rule is Civililty - the thing we want to get rid of is incivility. I was saying that we should name the rule for the intent, not the problem. :P -戴&#30505sv 21:58, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

quite true :-)

I have added an External Links section to Wikipedia:Civility with a link to your article on meta (the link actually mentions you by name). Is this an acceptable solution? Jwrosenzweig 22:42, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Office of Members' Advocates[edit]

Hi, Ant. Good work you are doing on the mediation committee if I didn't tell you before. I've decided to start my own intra-wikipedia association (why not!) that is going to concern itself with volunteerism regarding the dispute resolution process. I'd encourage you to join, or comment, or both and tell the other mediators about it too, mediators can join, arbitrators are discouraged from joining; please read about it: Wikipedia:Office of Members' Advocates. — Alex756 [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 00:48, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your OMA membership[edit]

Hi Anthere, and welcome to the Office of Members' Advocates. As the de-facto interim coordinator I've added a link to your talk page on the talk page of the association; if you want to add any more contact information that you feel comfortable with please do so. I've started writing a few other pages and if you want to contribute to any of those pages or do some editing that would be great. Once we have a few more members we might try to have a membership meeting to discuss how we might act as a group or help each other with our new-found volunteer role. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 04:11, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Michaux[edit]

Hi Anthere, I've done a brief article on Andre Michaux. You might be able to flesh out this from the French side? Also, I've forgotten how to put the accent on his name. Take a look if you wish. Pollinator 14:51, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mediate Mav/168?[edit]

168 has indicated that he would be agreeable to you mediating the dispute between him and Mav (who also said he would accept you). Would you be willing to mediate this dispute? Tuf-Kat 20:04, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Protected pages[edit]

Hi, when next you update Wikipedia:Protected page could you please sign with a timestamp? It helps to know how long a page has been protected for. Thanks, silsor 18:34, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Copyrights[edit]

We do accept images which are not GFDL. We even accept images licensed exclusively to the Wikipedia, though we strongly prefer more free images. If you know of images which are available on another site and may be of interest to the Wikipedia, you can ask the not-Anthere site operator to let the Wikipedia use them under a non-GFDL license and note with the upload that the owner of the site has licensed them under whatever license they like. Be sure that you do clearly describe the rights the other site operator has granted, and make sure that the operator of the other site is not "Anthere", just because it might confuse people about the legal difference between the two identities if they looked very similar. Jamesday 13:04, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

laïcité[edit]

Hi Anthere! I was just rereading French law to ban conspicuous religious symbols and I realised that there's no real explanation of why people might be in favour of this law. Would you be able to write something general about laicity, sex equality, veils and "la loi du cité", and/or anything else you think is relevant? By the way, there's some suggestions for alternative titles for the article on the talk page, so if you could suggest others, or say which ones you would be happy with, it would be a great help. Cheers, fabiform | talk 14:05, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC).

Mediation[edit]

I'd rather discuss this out in the open. Could we? BTW, I am going to log out in just a couple minutes, but I will be back later. 168...|...Talk 00:07, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am around on the fr right now. I do not go away very soon, but I won't stay up very late this night. I'll explain something about the "open" in a little while :-) fr0069

1)I have nothing to hide and I wish that to be clear. 2)I did what I did as a political act of martyrdom in an effort to change the system, therefore I want a public trial in which I will be able to give my reasons for what I did and to talk about pathological behaviors of the group which I believe led to my punishment. You can talk privately to my adversaries, if you like, but I would rather talk publicly.168...|...Talk 02:42, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

P.S. If we do this on a designated meta page, people could comment on the associated talk page without interfering with our discussion.168...|...Talk 02:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Anth. I read the links you gave me to the mail postings and I read the part of the mediation article that dealt with privacy. I will read more when I find time. I really appreciate the analysis you gave of the situation on the mail list, which is the first I've read that seems at all sympathetic to me. I was mildly irritated by Mav's response, perhaps not surprisingly. I am not sure what about it you might want me to address, because I don't read him as saying anything very committal regarding how he would like to proceed. Also, I don't feel like I've read a reason for keeping communications between me and the mediator (i.e. you) private. To make this private would be a very big concession for me, so I would like to read a good reason for it. Thanks again for agreeing to this unpleasant job. 168...|...Talk 16:26, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See also:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mav, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mav. I deleted these pages long ago when it seemed Mav and I had reached a truce, but I have brought them back since he has come after me again in a similar manner.168...|...Talk 22:21, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC) 168...|...Talk 22:21, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also this comment from Cyan specifically. Cyan mediated the discussions between me, Lir and others over the articles DNA and Nucleic acid, in connection with which Mav and others attacked my behavior. Cyan was a witness to the events, was much more intimate with the facts than was Mav, and had a much more sympathetic view of my behavior. Mav seemingly didn't solicit any information or counsel from him. Unfortunately, Cyan made a kind of bet with Lir which he seems to think he lost, and has banned himself seemingly forever as a result.168...|...Talk 22:31, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I suppose you will want to research this matter in an independent way, but there is a lot to read in lots of obscure places, so let me know if you would like me to list or rank what I think are the important things to look at. I hope my recent edits and footnoting to old pages won't make you have to do a lot of re-reading, but a lot of them I think are essential to represent the situation fairly and others provide what I think are helpful links to evidence to support my claims.168...|...Talk 00:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

yes, a list would be most valuable, and rank would help :-)

But...point is...would you also care to define what your claims are exactly ? Could you list these ones as well ?

by the way, just to check...did you read that as well [1] ?

Wow. I really appreciate you exhorting Mav to see my actions as political. It was mostly the comment he made about this in his reply that irritated me. I've been without sympathy here for so long that your mediation feels like advocacy on my behalf. For a pure articulation of my complaints against Mav, I recommend the recently updated Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mav. The other links I gave you above after "see also" are also good links for my perspective. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lir#DNA is the genetic code of life provides an example of a long and failed attempt to resolve a single point with Lir that motivated me to take the radical actions that I did. I dissected it from several parallel threads of conversation on talk:DNA, which is probably the most important and relevant document. Unfortunately, it is very very long, and I think hard to interpret as a chronological record of what happened, and I think that is why nobody seems to have thoroughly researched the facts before making accusations against me. At this moment in time (i.e. before anybody reverts my changes), I think Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168, after my many edits, is fair in the accusations it makes against me and I think at least alludes to nearly all of the facts I consider relevant.168...|...Talk 01:02, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You probably saw this if you have looked at recent posts to Talk:DNA, but it's a fairly succinct statement of my position regarding that page and those users, in which I allowed myself to show more righteous indignation than I do on the requests for comment page narrative. Here it is[2].168...|...Talk 17:56, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

About public mediation: I read the comments on the BBS site. I suppose there is a "grandstanding" element to what I want public mediation for, but it's also about justice. Mav dragged my name through the mud--through a lot worse mud than was deserved, I believe the facts show. While it's true that I am trying to heap some deserved mud on him at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mav, I doubt my claims against him have been read by nearly so many people or are so trusted as the claims he has made against me. An aspect of the injustice done to me is publicity, which is why I want my vindication to take place prominently and publicly. Without public vindication--instead of quiet re-awarding of admin status--many people will live with the memory of my supposed bad behavior, and relatively few people will consider Mav guilty of anything or learn anything about how not to mediate a public discussion of controversial behavior in the future (a lesson I think this community needs). A substitute for public trial would be a public apology, such as I mentioned to you in private e-mail. But I don't see that Mav has any incentive to make such an apology. I doubt he will ever come to feel apologetic, plus you can't force him to make it, and I doubt there is anything I am willing to give him in return for it. So the only way I can feel guaranteed of coming away from this process with justice served is for a public trial. 168...|...Talk 21:38, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You might consider the model of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa. The publicity of the proceedings was pretty much one and the same thing as the administration of justice. No publicity, no justice in South Africa.168...|...Talk 21:38, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

French law on...[edit]

Hi Anthere! I've been going over what you added to the article yesterday (you made some really good points). I need you to explain exactly what you're saying here:

They have highlighted the tensions provoked by the revendication of religious and group identities, like the formation of clans, for instance. They regret frequent violence toward themselves as well, in particular toward female teachers.

I don't know what you mean by "revendication" - do you mean the creating/formation; the claims/demands; reclaiming, etc? And the word "clan" is mostly used to mean a Scottish family... do you mean a "gang" (this could imply that they are violent), or would "group" be better? So far I've only done the "Background and Stasi Commission" section. Cheers, fabiform | talk 09:53, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC).

Full? Only 127% ;) I need to consolodate accounts, maybe. -S 18:37, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

laicity? what? -KuniShiro 19:19, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, by the way.--S 19:41, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ant, the ants, the crabs, my tempests, the foam[edit]

:-)

Anthere, there is a simple explanation -- my stupid mistake. In a fit of anti-vandal rollbacks of anon contributions, I mistook it for vandalism. When I see random, out of context edits from anons, I'll often rollback first. So sincerest apologies to you and 62.39. Fuzheado 23:12, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh Anthere, I don't think you need to do that to Cuisine of France. I'm sure something nice can be worked out :) Dysprosia 11:45, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Moving recipes to wikibooks[edit]

The consensus to remove recipes can be observed at the Transwiki log or at in the page history for WP:VFD. I personally have listed 16 recipes at VfD after transwikiing the contents over to wikibooks, one has been objceted to and kept. Most have not had any comment after they've been listed for 5 days. Any article I find that has both a recipe and encyclopedic information in the same page, I transwiki the recipe and add a link to the new location in the page. Again, no one has reverted any page I've done this to. These non-actions on the part of the community suggest to me that the wikipedia editors believe recipes belong at the Wikimedia Cookbook, and not in the encyclopedia. Gentgeen 18:36, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A log is not a place where consensus is made
The Vfd is such an horrible place that all inclusionists avoid it like hell; I do not think either that 2 people voting to delete a recipee show any sort of community consensus
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cr%EApe&diff=2495863&oldid=2494537 shows that in effect information is lost, because sometimes the article does not link to the wikibook article. In doing so, you make information disappear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ratatouille&oldid=2495301 this shows that not only information is lost, but on top of it, you deny the very existence of ratatouille and its right of being said part of culture
I suggest that these non actions are from now on over. Several users have shown their dismay as seeing the recipee shown entirely of no interest for an encyclopedia.

I made several suggestions on Karen page. I hope you will consider them. I hope you consider our opinion matters; Anthère0

Cute little fuzzy critters[edit]

Thanks for the dogs. Sorry I didn't send this note sooner. Je vous remercie tres beacoup, mais en retard :-( --Edmond Le Pauvre

ok. But to tell the truth, I feel offended. By the dog, by the predictions, by the mailing list. ant

???? Je ne comprends pas. Elle a partits sans un parole, et moi, Je mets le tete sur les bras et je pleut.

Ta mini-vacance[edit]

Si tu as besoin to chat de causerie svp contacte-moi n'importe quand. Soye bien! -- B

Salut! - B

J'ai édité ta contribution à l'article W:Med. Il était très bon et très clair -- et avec l'information importante. Je pense qu'il ne sera pas enlevé. Et j'espère que tu se sente mieux.

merci beaucoup :-)

Hi Fluffy, thanks for the lovely photos, those puppies are cute!

I don't know whether you want me to comment at all on the bit you deleted, but one thing I really did want to say: I think when people don't reply, the usual reason is that they don't have any answers. It's an extension of the wiki-way really - if you don't know, leave it, someone else will fix it later. But then if no one knows the answer then there is a disheartening silence. I don't believe it's a reflection on what has been said or who said it, it's just we are all struggling to see how this thing might work and what we need to do to get it there. Anyway, I just wanted to say how much I value working with you, especially with all the thought you put in to how this is going to work. Best wishes -- sannse (talk) 11:27, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Press Release[edit]

I see you contributed to the creation of the press release. Might you be willing to follow these steps, and send off the press release? -- user:zanimum

DNA[edit]

Ant, I will definitely keep an eye on DNA. If it gets out of hand again, I will step in....or anyone can step in. It is my belief that two weeks is long enough for an article to be protected. We miss out on other users making changes and additions to the article.

I realize you have a lot invested in the conflict at hand. I'd like to thank you personally for your hard work.

Sincerely, Kingturtle 00:38, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

J'ai juste vu ton edit. Je suis très étonné que tu es éveillée! Cela me manque de parler a tu. Peut-être demain... --- B

I tried to sleep. I read an entire book. I am not well. I will go back to bed and try again. Peut etre demain oui :-) my best.

Regarding blocking users and DNA[edit]

I apologise for those who will find themselves blocked by "mistake", but I am very serious here. No edition of the two paragraphs is to be done. I think I indicated that clearly on top of the page. I do not think the comments can escape anyone. For edition by people not involved in the conflict, I could be nice enough to unban them under promise they will be careful. Thanks :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing

[Peak:] Dear Ant - I think your general strategy is absolutely right - it is the one I had been arguing for for a long time ("community defense with support from sysops"), but you have (no doubt, inadvertently) rewarded 168...'s subvandalism by in effect freezing the page at his version, instead of the "near-consensus version" that was worked out on the Talk page last month, and which had been up until 168... decided to initiate this latest round of subvandalism. I say "subvandalism" because this time, Lir was not involved at all so previous attempts to justify his behavior as a defense against Lir now ring very hollow.

And speaking of Lir, User:Eloquence says that the highest Wikipowers-that-be decided that keeping Lir around is the best way to keep him (Lir) on a tight leash. Do you think that 168... understands this? If not, then (assuming you haven't already done so), you might try to explain the wisdom of the "community defense with support from sysops" policy in relation to this approach to handling Lir. That is, 168...'s "civil disobedience" campaign (or more accurately now, incivil disobedience campaign) for banning Lir seems to have been premised on a flawed assumption about technicial aspects of a "ban". Peak 17:18, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. Did you receive my email to you on Feb 20, in response to your email of Feb 19? Peak

Oui - je suis chez moi, mangeant le déjeuner. As-tu voulu dire pour supprimer le commentaire d'éloquence quand tu as répondu à "la crête"? -- B

??? Désolée, je ne comprend pas :-( ici: [3]

[4] Thanks for telling ! I have no idea what happened. I did not want to remove anything :-(

Thank you for letting me know. Slrubenstein Boy, do I feel stupid! And awful ... Slrubenstein

ça va bien?? Je suis à un appel téléphonique... plus tard que je serai plus disponible -- peut-être dans 30m Brian

Thanks :-) But I go to bed, it is wiser :-) It is dark as well, no one hear me mumbling, but I can rest ;-) tomorrow, or perhaps the day after shall be a better day.

D'accord -- Et Xirzon a fait des excuses pour être grossier -- "Xirzon: OK, folks. Sorry for being rude earlier. When I feel personally attacked I can become very defensive"

Peace, BCorr ¤ Брайен

ok.

i appreciate your hard work[edit]

Thank you for working so hard to make this a fair, reasonable place. Kingturtle 02:16, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. I apologize for taking the chance with unprotecting DNA. I really thought mav and 168 would succeed. I am shocked at their behavior over the weekend. I feel terrible that it turned out that way. Alas. I still hold hope for their future. Kingturtle 02:21, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I thank you. I know not very well what to do right now

[Peak to Ant and Kingturtle:] I would also like to register my appreciation for Anthere's hard work. In addition, as someone who has spent many weeks trying to achieve some kind of consensus at DNA, I can say that the mistake wasn't UNPROTECTING the page; rather, it was un-de-sysoping 168... prematurely. That sent a wrong signal to everyone, including 168....

that is possible. Well, we try our best, and sometimes make mistakes :-) It is not easy to be in someone else shoes :-)

I would also like to take this opportunity to suggest that, so far as I have been able to tell, Mav has never done anything wrong in the 168... affair. The root problem here is simply Wikipedia's weak defense against Lir's brand of subvandalism. This is what led 168... to the conclusion that a campaign of "civil disobedience" was necessary; this was fine until he started abusing his sysop powers to favor his personal preference. Of course, he attempted to justify this on the grounds that it was all against Lir, but if you followed the logic of his justification, you would see that 168... was in effect proclaiming that he, as sysop, could do anything he liked, without any external constraint whatsoever. Peak 05:09, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think Peak, that you should try to sum up your opinions on the request for 168 page. I suppose it is already there, but that page is quite undigest. In case 168 does not come back, this page and this case will become bogus (let's hope we learn from it); in case 168 comes back, it will be a background to help arbitration to understand the case. Your opinion will be important to them I suppose.

I personally will not give my opinion on this, and will not put my name on any poll or on any vote on any related matter. As a mediator in that affair, I think I must not do it. I have no decision role here. However, where my role is, is to insure that people are taken some of the pain back from them, that they feel better. That they do not feel excluded. When 168 feels that he is not treated fairly, then I am concerned. But I will not judge whether he is right or wrong in his perception some people were not fair to him. Yes ? :-)

I accept your apology, except there really is no need for you to apologize -- I entirely understand your reaction, moreover, it was the strength of your reaction that called my attention to my mistake. So I really do thank you. The important thing is that we can communicate. I am sure there are others who read my post and had the same reaction as you, but who kept it to themselves. I am so glad you did not. Slrubenstein

I see you posted a request for an advocate on the AMA page. As you probably noted, current guidelines would suggest that you not be the advocate, since you have already been the mediator in this case. Anyway, I take it you are asking for somebody else to do the job, not volunteering to do it yourself. Do you have any ideas about who should take it? For myself, I am reluctant, because I was involved in a separate dispute with 168... recently, and your request seems like it should be filled by someone the parties might consider neutral. --Michael Snow 21:46, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I let Secretlondon know about your request and told her to contact either you or myself. --Michael Snow 16:39, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Salut! I'm OK, mais je suis somnolent -- although I am now like you -- I only got 3h of sleep! Merci de s'enquérir de mon bien-être! BCorr ¤ Брайен 16:01, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Your AC question: an answer (of sorts)[edit]

elements cross-posted to each others' talk pages - James F., Anthere

As you requested, I've answered your question on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration.
Again, I'm sorry that we didn't seem to agree before on IRC.
Take care.
James F. (talk) 02:40, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But of course; we certainly agree on far more than we quarrel.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 10:56, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Veuille décider si tu es d'accord avec moi, ou si tu as une autre idée, ou si tu ne pense pas il existes un problème. Je suis concerné parce que le perl nomme trop de gens, et est la même personne qui a nommé sam: Nominators and nominations - B

Evening Anthere, that was a great summary of the current mediating issues - I'm going to think on them and reply over the weekend. Regards -- sannse (talk) 22:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Anthere. I hope you don't mind but I moved some of the discussion between you and Sam from Wikipedia talk:Bans and blocks to his talk page as he was raising issues about your revert which seemed wholly irrelevant to the banning policy. Angela . 01:48, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Political_dispute&oldid=2603634

Hi -- Martin started this conversation: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_policy_comments#Binding_referral -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:51, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Hello! I have a question. Why do you sign your posts with FirmLittleFluffyThing? It confused me at first. :-) Perl 21:35, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

24 hour bans for edit wars[edit]

Hi Anthere,

I've amended the proposal on 24 hour bans for edit wars. In short, the amendment calls for a quickpoll to take place before any such ban can be implemented. If you support this, I'd like you to add your vote in favor to the 24 hour ban vote, with the comment "with quickpolls".

Please also participate in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls.—Eloquence 22:16, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Bonsoir -- my real life has kept me very busy today, but I will try to follow up on the various conflicts in a day or two.... Thanks, B

French letter[edit]

I have emailed you the letter that I wrote. Thank you for helping me with this. It means a lot to me. :-) Perl 00:55, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'll do this this afternoon Perl :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing 07:13, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Aloha. Koyaanis Qatsi 07:15, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Aloha KQ :-) I have been too busy to answer you (and actually not feeling happy enough), but I have a list of pict to show you. I put a word to you this afternoon. FirmLittleFluffyThing

Ah, well that's ok then. I hope you feel better soon. :-) ... And I'd love to see your pictures. Koyaanis Qatsi

ok Steve, photos, not picts; grumpf :-) ant