| Revision as of 14:58, 10 November 2006 edit-Bobby (talk | contribs)795 edits Wellesley College Dispute← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:44, 13 November 2006 edit undoInterestingstuffadder (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,390 edits three revert ruleNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| Hi. It seems like you might want to bump this up to a formal mediation level. Since my job is to try and reach a compromise through very casual discussion, I don't think there's much more I can do. We've reached a point where no wiggle room remains. You don't want to see the profane term on the college page (although I will again thankyou for at least agreeing to include a link to the Senate Bus) and Interestingstuffadder refuses to give any ground. In formal mediation, the mediators will be able to be somewaht more forceful, rather than just making suggestions. I'm dissappointed it has come to this (since I joined Cabal with the hopes of keeping disputes away from any formal process) but I feel it is in your best interest to move to the formal level. I'd also encourage you to try and find other Wikipedians with an interest in the Wellesley article who might add to your support. If the case does get picked up in formal mediation, you may list me as a party (in fact, I'd appreciate it if you did) and I'll offer my opinions on the matter. Have a great day, and I'm sorry I wasn't able to be more helpful. ]]] 14:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | Hi. It seems like you might want to bump this up to a formal mediation level. Since my job is to try and reach a compromise through very casual discussion, I don't think there's much more I can do. We've reached a point where no wiggle room remains. You don't want to see the profane term on the college page (although I will again thankyou for at least agreeing to include a link to the Senate Bus) and Interestingstuffadder refuses to give any ground. In formal mediation, the mediators will be able to be somewaht more forceful, rather than just making suggestions. I'm dissappointed it has come to this (since I joined Cabal with the hopes of keeping disputes away from any formal process) but I feel it is in your best interest to move to the formal level. I'd also encourage you to try and find other Wikipedians with an interest in the Wellesley article who might add to your support. If the case does get picked up in formal mediation, you may list me as a party (in fact, I'd appreciate it if you did) and I'll offer my opinions on the matter. Have a great day, and I'm sorry I wasn't able to be more helpful. ]]] 14:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == You may soon be in violation of the 3 Revert Rule == | |||
| If you revert the ] page again you will be in violation of the ] and will be subject to a block. Thanks. ] 22:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:44, 13 November 2006
No. Period. Melmoththewanderer 19:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Please look at Misplaced Pages guidelines
Please stop reverting my edits on the Wellesley College page. See Misplaced Pages: Misplaced Pages is not censored. Information is includable on wilkipedia if it satisfies wikipedia:notability and wikipedia:verifiability. As demonstrated by the seperate page on this shuttle and the numerous cites I have provided, this informaiton satisfies these requirements. Also, you are wring about the purpose of the wellesley ikipedia page. This is not a resource for parents and students. Rather, it is an encyclopedia entry and shoudl include the good, the bad, the ugly and the humorous, so long as notable and verifiable. In short: wikipedia is not a viewbook. Please stop reverting my justified edits. Interestingstuffadder 17:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- regardles of whaere else this appears, it meets wikipedia standards for inclusion on the wellesley page. i have provided a valid wikipedia justifiaciton and you have not. please stop using deletion vandalism to spread your propaganda. Interestingstuffadder 22:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
If you revert again you will be in violation of the Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule and could be subject to a block. Thanks. Interestingstuffadder 00:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Cabal Mediation
Hi. I've accepted the Cabal Mediation you requested on the Wellesley article. Looking over the discussion so far, it seems as if we're at a tough lock. It is my goal to try and reach an agreement so that the editors of the article can move beyond this dispute and work toward FA status. If it's ok with you, I'd like to use the talk page for the article as a forum. Please head over there when you have a chance to lend your two cents. →Bobby← 15:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Personal Attacks
Please stop it with the personal attacks on my talk page. What we have on the Wellesley College page is a valid content dispute. I have never personally attacked you. Let's just see how this turns out. Also, as for my spelling and grammar mistakes, I am sure that most of what I have written in these forums is full of type-os -- I don't exactly spend a lot of time proofreading, as there seem to be better things to do. I really don't care if you don't believe I graduated from Harvard. Why should I believe anything you have said, though, as you seem unable to engage in a debate based on actual wikipedia guidelines. Interestingstuffadder 22:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Wellesley College Dispute
Hi. It seems like you might want to bump this up to a formal mediation level. Since my job is to try and reach a compromise through very casual discussion, I don't think there's much more I can do. We've reached a point where no wiggle room remains. You don't want to see the profane term on the college page (although I will again thankyou for at least agreeing to include a link to the Senate Bus) and Interestingstuffadder refuses to give any ground. In formal mediation, the mediators will be able to be somewaht more forceful, rather than just making suggestions. I'm dissappointed it has come to this (since I joined Cabal with the hopes of keeping disputes away from any formal process) but I feel it is in your best interest to move to the formal level. I'd also encourage you to try and find other Wikipedians with an interest in the Wellesley article who might add to your support. If the case does get picked up in formal mediation, you may list me as a party (in fact, I'd appreciate it if you did) and I'll offer my opinions on the matter. Have a great day, and I'm sorry I wasn't able to be more helpful. →Bobby← 14:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You may soon be in violation of the 3 Revert Rule
If you revert the Wellesley College page again you will be in violation of the Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule and will be subject to a block. Thanks. Interestingstuffadder 22:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)