User talk:Dojarca/Archive7

RfA oppose[edit]

Hi there. This is a courtesy notice to let you know that I request your input at an RfA here, about your !vote. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypatus[edit]

I have reached out to see if we can get a little more information on the Hypatus article at the Classical Greece and Rome WikiProject page. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article clearly needs expansion.--Dojarca (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd like to know[edit]

That List of Solar System objects in hydrostatic equilibrium is now a Featured List. Serendi ^pod ous 18:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Consul[edit]

Hi Dojarca,

This is a good change. Nicely done. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Dojarca (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic[edit]

Sounds like the problem is going to be centered on a group of editors who are either nationalist, or just anti-Soviet or anti-Russian, and that these editors are creating the illusion of consensus by way of stonewalling against any other points of view. It may interest you to follow Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2, which involves a group of Greek editors creating a false consensus around the naming of Macedonia. The outcome of that case will hopefully provide better ways for dealing with issues like what we are seeing at the Occupations of Baltic states. That said, until we have a decision on the case, I should still be able to at least help offer a third party view to help balance things out a bit. I'll try to do this either tomorrow, or on Tuesday as I read up on the issues a bit more. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's another topic in which people are trying to figure up "novel" ways of interpreting the law to suit their own well-known to be incorrect fancy notions. You might find Tax protester arguments enlightening. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted[edit]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Occupation of the Baltic states.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Occupation of the Baltic states[edit]

Here it is. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you--Dojarca (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Question[edit]

Evidence, as I have tried to explain, belongs on the evidence page. Wishes can be placed on the talk page, at the Workshop, its talk page, or emailed to the Arbs directly. It depends on what you mean by application. If you look, the majority of what Deacon wrote remains on the evidence page. It is only the material that is inappropriate for that page that has been removed. Please let me know if you have any further questions. As Clerks we are here to keep things orderly in the manner the Arbs prescribe and help out where possible. KnightLago (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by official request? Do you want to make a motion, request of the Arbs or Clerks, or something else? If you could give me a little more detail I could point you in the right direction. KnightLago (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is kinda outside my remit as a Clerk, but you could try the Arbitration talk page or open a request for comment. KnightLago (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am confused what you are asking. Are you asking to have the Arbitrators look at what Deacon called his evidence and see if it is evidence? KnightLago (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions warning[edit]

With your recent edits on Katyn massacre, both you and your opponent User:Loosmark have been engaging in tendentious aggressive edit-warring. I am therefore giving both of you a warning under the terms of the Arbcom discretionary sanctions rule that you may be placed under a revert limitation if you continue any form of disruptive POV-driven editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]