Click 'show' to view an index of all archives
|
Rejected mediation request pages
|
|
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was
rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a
new request.
|
- Whether to continue using both the BC/AD and BCE/CE era tags in violation of the Manual of Style as a compromise between editors who are offended by the use of either.
- When it is appropriate to ignore the Manual of Style.
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.
- Agree.
Preston McConkie
20:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
=David(
talk)(
contribs)
08:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
John Smith's
09:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Sophia
12:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.
- Note: I have removed extraneous discussion from this page - only the bare bones of the dispute are required at the moment and the Committee asks that further comment wait until a decision on whether the case will be accepted has been made. Please link to the discussion that is mentioned above, and also to any prior steps in the dispute resolution process - 3rd opinion, RfCs or requests for informal mediation.
- For the Mediation Committee,
WjB
scribe
22:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I have added four parties not listed by the filer, but appear from recent discussion (post-August 10) to be involved in this dispute. I have sent them all a standard introductory message, attached with a note that if I misjudged their involvement and they do not believe that they should be a party to any mediation request, they are asked to remove their name from the party list above with my apologies. In addition, if any of the parties currently listed believe that I have missed anyone that should be a party, feel free to let me know on my talk page.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
07:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Reject, parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
07:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was
rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a
new request.
|
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at the
talk page.
- Agree.
Yano
05:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree. --
HJensen,
talk
05:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree. --
Tkynerd
17:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree. --
Bolonium
21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree. //
laughing man
00:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree. --
GOD OF JUSTICE
19:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
- Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
04:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
Comment: I echo Daniel's rejection, and I must add that I reject it with prejudice against re-requesting. This has been requested 3 times within 24 hours, and rejected every time. There is no consensus for a page move, and trying to force mediation will not change it--as mediation works on consensus as well. Redirects are cheap, so I see no reason why this should be continually debated again.
Iff there seems to be a wider consensus for a move and perhaps for mediation, then I wouldn't be opposed to a case being reconsidered, but at this present time, please do not post it again
For the Mediation Committee, ^
demon
[omg plz] 14:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Comment retracted, my error for not double checking facts. ^
demon
[omg plz]
11:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was
rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a
new request.
|
-
WT:NOR. Extensive discussion on the talk page.
- Multiple requests for feedback on the village pump.
[1]
[2]
[3]
- The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
- Whether sources should be addressed in relation to no original research.
- What distinction, if any, between sources should be used.
- What weight or preference should be given, or not, to various types of sources.
- Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.
- Whether the context of the article (that is, scientific, historical, popular culture, BLP, current affairs and so on) has a bearing on the quality and type of sources permitted.
Spenny
08:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I dunno. Is this even proper? I see this on the mediation page: "Mediation is not a forum for policy decisions." I'm very willing to participate and think the result could be a good one but is it doable? We are in a discussion of a policy page. (modified to make it grammatical)
Minasbeede
01:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
Whether the current and proposed policies correspond with Keep accepted Wikipedia practice (which may vary from subject to subject) in mind, but don't necessarily rule on it. Policy is supposed to reflect the consensus of Wikipedia, not just the policy-page editors.
Jacob Haller
18:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
Whether all distinctions based on the type of source (other than reliable/non-reliable) should be moved, at least temporarily, to a Wikipedia essay until consensus can be reached, and such distinctions deleted, at least temporarily, from
WP:OR.
COGDEN
18:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
Whether there is a consensus regarding the difference between primary and secondary sources.
COGDEN
18:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
Whether, in actual widespread Wikipedia practice, primary sources are "rare", and secondary sources primarily "relied upon".
COGDEN
18:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
Whether
WP:OR is the appropriate policy page to make distinctions based on the type of source.
COGDEN
18:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Whether even a perceived tightening of the policy ( e.g. the word "rare" in regard to primary sources ) will provide fuel for deletionist edit warring.
Squidfryerchef
03:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at the
talk page.
Agree. Withdraw request. We do not have full agreement for mediation and we seem to be making good progress towards a solution without mediator assistance.
Vassyana
05:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
SamBC(
talk) 08:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC) -
Agree with Blueboar, the issues listed now are too broad and disorganised.
SamBC(
talk)
22:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree
Spenny
08:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree
wbfergus
Talk
10:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree
Dhaluza
11:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
Agree
Blueboar
12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC) - removing my name from agreement... too many issues on the table for mediation to ever be successful.
reply
- Agree.
MastCell
Talk
14:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
Agree `'
Míkka
15:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree. Policies are not articles. There have always been a long negotiation over significant changes in policies, because policies are drawn "in house", "not on external references from reliable sources". I fail to see what difference mediation will bring beyond formatily, and the proposer did not explain the benefits. `'
Míkka
19:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree
Minasbeede
15:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Jacob Haller
18:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
COGDEN
18:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree
Slrubenstein |
Talk
13:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Squidfryerchef
03:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
- Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
06:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was
rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a
new request.
|
-
[4] Extensive talk on talkpage + vote
-
[5] RfC on talkpage
- The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
- Whether or not information about New Guinea Copra Plantations should be included
- If so, how much Copra Plantation information should be included?
- Is it appropriate for newspaper articles about Copra Plantations to be used to reference other facts?
- Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at the
talk page.
- Agree.
Lester2
06:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- [Tentatively] Agree.
Daniel
05:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree.
Sarah
06:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree.
Pete
06:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
- Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Vassyana
06:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
----> NON-DISPLAYED NOTES
Naturally, I'm recused. -Daniel.
|
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was
rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a
new request.
|
List of government agencies in comics
- The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
- Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at the
talk page.
- Agree. --
Basique
16:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree.
Groupthink
07:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
- Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
09:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was
rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a
new request.
|
- Extensive discussion on article talk page.
- The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
- Should the "Historical accuracy" section of the article
300 (film) include an account of remarks made by
Touraj Daryaee?
- Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at the
talk page.
- Agree. --
Javits2000
15:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Talsal
14:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Notthemanbehindthecurtain 10:37 18 September 2007 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
172.200.246.118 (
talk)
10:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
- Reject, parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
02:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was
rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a
new request.
|
- Whether Midge Potts should be referred to as a he or she in the article. There are basically two sides to this dispute. One side says Potts should be called a she, per the Manual of Style, and how Potts is referred to, while the other side says Potts should be called a he, because Potts hasn't officially undergone a sex-change or taken "official" hormones.
None at this time, unless anyone wants to add any...
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at the
talk page.
- Agree.
Nwwaew (
Talk Page) (
Contribs) (
E-mail me)
19:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
SchuminWeb (
Talk)
19:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
SamBC(
talk)
21:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree (see talk).
Jinxmchue
22:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
- Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
08:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was
rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a
new request.
|
- The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
- Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at the
talk page.
- Agree
— BQZip01 —
talk
21:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
- Note: This case will be rejected soon if ThreeE does not indicate his interest in mediation. Since ThreeE was not notified until September 21, I'm giving this until September 30, at which time this request will be closed.
Ral315
»
20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Reject, parties did not agree to mediation within nine days.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
05:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was
rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a
new request.
|
- The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
- If well sourced, is describing Hefner as "disseminating hardcore pornography" prohibited by BLP rules?
- Can Hefner's biography be divorced from the fortunes of Playboy Enterprises after his daughter became chairman of the board and CEO?
- Is there proper sourcing to call Hefner a "voice" of libertarianism?
- Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at
the talk page.
- Agree
JerryGraf
10:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC).
reply
- Disagree Jerry lost his request for comment so he wants to try and supercede it.
Rogue Gremlin
12:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
- Reject, all parties do not agree to mediation.
- For the Mediation Committee,
WjB
scribe
13:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was
rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a
new request.
|
- The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
- Should Christian rock be listed as a genre?
- Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at the
talk page.
- Agree.
Hoponpop69
18:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Skateremorocker
- Agree.
Sk8erforzero —Preceding
signed but undated comment was added at
19:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree hey can i help out —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
209.247.22.143 (
talk)
22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
reply
- A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
- Reject. Insufficient discussion and
prior dispute resolution attempts have been made to justify adding this case to the backlog at the Committee at the present time. In the interests of resolving this dispute amicably and in the briefest possible time for the participants, I suggest obtaining the help of the Mediation Cabal; click
here for more details and instructions on filing a case there. I make this decision on the grounds that you would be better suited to asking for resolution at the Mediation Cabal, given your dispute is relatively narrow in the scope of the issues; and that I believe the parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
00:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
reply