| Revision as of 21:01, 20 June 2005 editEd Poor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,210 edits →[]: I created a mediation enclave at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:35, 12 November 2018 edit undoRGloucester (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers38,757 edits rdr to mainTag: New redirect | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{shortcut|]}} | |||
| {{rfm-header}} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| <!-- please post your request at the bottom of this list - thanks --> | |||
| ==May== | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| I would like to request mediation for an ongoing revert war over the subject of whether dates on this article should use the conventional ]/] format or the ]/] alternative. This revert war has been waging for several days with several users, especially ] violating 3RR. At present the dispute centers over a proposed change by ] to alter the BC/AD dating system to BCE/CE. JimWae, slrubenstein, and some of the other editors argue that BC/AD is non NPOV since the dating system is based on the life of Christ, although ] says that it is perfectly acceptable. JimWae's proposed change currently lacks consensus among editors on the article's talk page and a vote started after an RfC yesterday shows a majority of editors are '''against''' the change. Those opposed to JimWae's change currently lead the ] by 12 to 9 and have consistently led since it was started. A small group of editors in favor of the change including the two aforementioned persons has nevertheless insisted upon implementing it in the article, leading to an endless revert war with editors who are trying to keep the article as it was with the BC/AD date system. Several requests of them to abstain from doing so until a consensus is reached in the discussion page have been ignored. ] has engaged in particularly abusive posting habits including several personal attacks on editors who have voted against the change for simply voting among other things. Any help at mediating this dispute would be greatly appreciated. ] 02:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Do all parties agree to mediation? -]|] 00:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| I would like to request mediation between myself and ], who also goes by the IP ] in regards to the article ]. ] has taken it upon himself to continuously delete a link questioning the Iglesia ni Cristo's teachings while ], a sysop has said that it could stand. He has no respect or deference for the rules of the Misplaced Pages and has made personal attacks on me and LBMixPro on the discussion page. I would be grateful for anyone's help mediating the dispute before this conflict escalates. Sincerely, --] 04:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I for one believe that Onlytofind's edits unfairly put the INC in a bad light, and that gcessor has taken great efforts to put this article to near-NPOV, as opposed to Onlytofind's. You can check the article history to verify this. Just wanted you to know that there's always two sides to a story. Yes, a mediation is clearly needed here. ] 03:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *] insists on including a link to www.thebereans.net, a "con" site that "exposes" the INC. The problem is that the Bereans' site is already linked to in the "forum" list and contains a hyperlink on that page. IMO it is redundant to have both links to the same general site. Furthermore, there is only one actual "pro" site (more are not allowed per Church Administration instructions), whereas ] insists on having four "con" sites. I feel this is completely out of step with most Misplaced Pages sites describing religions - I have yet to find a Misplaced Pages site where the number of "con" sites is even equal with the number of "pro" sites, much less four "con" sites to only one actual "pro" site. Lastly, ] claims that I have made personal attacks on him - but when I requested that he show me where I have done so, he will not provide any such proof (which is because I have made NO such personal attacks - I challenge anyone to show me where I have done so!). Please do mediate and show us where NPOV is violated, particularly in comparison to other non-disupted Misplaced Pages sites describing religions.]--] 14:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *In summary, I would like to see three resolutions: | |||
| **(1) Whether the site as it presently stands is NPOV, or biased for or against the INC ''as compared to other undisputed Misplaced Pages sites on religions''. | |||
| **(2) Whether it is right for the "con" section to have three or four times as many links as the number of links (1) in the "pro" site - again, ''as compared to other undisputed Misplaced Pages sites on religions''. | |||
| **(3) Whether I have ever used insulting language against anyone, including ]. ]--] 14:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| I would like to request mediation between myself and ], in regards to the article ]. ] has taken it upon himself to continuously delete a link to photos of Gaza strip. The photos are part of a work I amdoing describing the situation in Gaza prior to israel Pull-out plan. The photo (www.pbase.com/yalop/gaza) show the life of Palestinians in Gaza and of Israeli settlers there. Jayjg first removed the link claiming that it is "right wing Israeli propeganda" (side note I would invite anyone to other photos I take on www.pbase.com/yalop/wall_in_yard to determine if I am a "right wing peopeganda person") anyhow since Jayjg decided the links to the photos are propeganda he takes then down claiming that he is "removing link spam". | |||
| Jayjg has an agenda that he exposed when he first removed the links. Such agenda disqulfied him from editing such a politicaly sensitive issue. He also engae in a personal vandeta against me and removed links from other articles . | |||
| Please help with finding a mediator who can help imlement the external link policy. | |||
| Is anyone reasing this ? Please help resolve this dispute . Thanks. | |||
| The same editor has removed other photos from other articles | |||
| He wrote his justification for the removal as "remove anti-pullout spamlinks" | |||
| Please see ] | |||
| Can anyone help in the mediation of this or is one person can just start a personal edit war against me because he | |||
| mis interpret my photos as being against his political view ? | |||
| (How can photos of a place, photos that show both Israelis and Palestinians who live in the area) be a propeganda is beyond my ability to understand but it seems he has made his mind and started a vandeta to remove all external links I have added. | |||
| Is this how Misplaced Pages works ? | |||
| Please note that the issue is the CONTENT of the photos (not anything else like should they be loaded directly or linked to external site) This editor objects these photos: | |||
| http://www.pbase.com/yalop/gaza | |||
| http://www.pbase.com/yalop/mawassi | |||
| http://www.pbase.com/yalop/work | |||
| http://www.pbase.com/yalop/gaza_surfers | |||
| http://www.pbase.com/yalop/gaza&page=2 | |||
| Clearly these are photos trying to provide insight on the situation and not propeganda by either side | |||
| Both sides could be unhappy about some of the photos and happy about others. | |||
| :Actually three different editors have been removing the links, based on the fact that the links are not encyclopedic, and are an attempt to spam Misplaced Pages with links to his website (yes, I know he'll claim it's not his website, since he is not the ISP, but that's sophistry). He knows this, but prefers to present the issue as something else. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 17:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Jayjg has removed this without providing an Edit Summary: | |||
| * | |||
| I would like to mediate this issue : Are photos showing the living condition of people in Gaza strip belong or do not belong in a page that talks about the poeple, the living condition and the poverty in Gaza strip ? | |||
| The fact that Jayjg his misunderstood the photos to be what he describe as "right wing propeganda" just show that he does not understand what is in the photos. The fact that two others jumped to his defense (maybe because I am not a register user or for other non jermain reason) proovs nothing. All that is needed is to look at the photos and answer: | |||
| Are those important to people who search for the value "Gaza strip" ? | |||
| Answer: Clearly the photos provide insight beyond the text | |||
| Are the link vioalte the external link policy ? | |||
| Answer: I don't see how. | |||
| Please help mediate this. Jayjg and.or John Parris are not qualified tio make these decision alone. | |||
| === ] and the ] pages === | |||
| I respectfully request mediation on these two pages, with a second from ]. I also believe that ] may support this. ] <strike>and ]</strike> may eventually support mediation, but remain skeptical. ] supports mediation. | |||
| I believe the following items need mediation: | |||
| *POV issues surrounding Ms. Schiavo's condition (PVS, MVS, etc.) | |||
| *POV issues surrounding the legal status Ms. Schiavo's family (legal guardianship of Terri; Michael's relationships; etc.) | |||
| *POV issues regarding terminology discussing the judge's ruling(s) | |||
| *Behavior on the Talk Page | |||
| The good news is that there are a large number of deeply concerned and motivated people contributing to the pages. Unfortunately, the Talk page has become rancorous and bloggish enough that the article(s) may need arbitration. However, a less vocal majority would like to see sustantial outside input before we ask for that step. | |||
| The issues surrounding Terri Schiavo, her family and her eventual death are already having a major impact on US politics and culture. This can be seen in the Filibuster debate on the Senate floor. Please assist us in presenting the facts in the best means possible for Misplaced Pages.--] 18:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Pardon. Several users are waiting to hear what, if any response there's been to this request. If the topic is not going to be addressed, I'd like to go back to them and see if arbitration is in order. Please respond.--] 14:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I support mediation, and I'm more than puzzled that there's been no response to the request. What's up with that? ] 15:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Things have settled down of late, but I doubt they're settled for good. The key issue seems to be that two vastly divergent POVs exist on this subject. The first holds that the findings of the courts must be treated as '''fact''' in Misplaced Pages. The second takes a more broad view of '''fact'''; one that allows for the courts to be incorrect, and some of their findings to be anywhere from wrong (at best) to criminal (at worst). Please give us a standard to self-rule by.--] 20:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| <font color=000099>I think that the Schiavo page is good -but NOT perfect at all: I agree with Ghost's analysis. In order to address the problems we need a 2-step approach: '''First''' we need to find things that bother us in the article and identify them. (I.e., "what's the problem?") Let me help out: Does anyone think the article has unneeded items -or items missing? ''Specifically,'' are they in the discussion of the history of the Schiavo saga (broader than merely a court case, mind you!) --or, instead, are they in the links and references sections? Then, '''secondly,''' we need to ask, "what's the proposed solution?" The solution would be to address them point, by point. Period.--] 23:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)</font> | |||
| *]: So far one requester has agreed to ] ] as Mediator. Any other takers? ] ] 00:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Yes, I agree. ] 00:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *<font color=000099>I checked out your user page, Uncle Ed, and notice that you are on good terms with some of the big names in Misplaced Pages. In addition, I recall that your comments on Terri Schiavo's WIKI talk page seemed polite and balanced. Since I had put this page on my watch list, I finally got around to taking a look to see "what's up." Although I am a day late, I am NOT a dollar short: I shall provide an answer in the affirmative: I support your participation in mediation.--] 10:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)</font> | |||
| *I created a mediation enclave at ] and invited all the people ghost identified as agreeing to / favoring mediation. ] ] 21:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===] and ]=== | |||
| User Sam Spade appears to be following me from page to page in a systematic way and making edits that challenge or revert my edits. He does not appear to be engaging in constructive collective editing on the discussion pages. He appears to believe that his right-wing POV is actually NPOV. He appears to have a history of getting into disputes with other editors. I am requesting a mediator to find a solution to this problem. There are several pages involved: ], ], and ].--] 22:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :See also ]. I would say this is a trivial matter unworthy of the mediators’ time (particularly in comparison to other outstanding cases), but I will gladly engage in a constructive dialogue. I assume it goes without saying that I reject most of Chips statement above. <big>''''']'''''</big> 22:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Sam, you need to be clear. Are you willing to accept mediation or not?] 02:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you a mediator? If not, I don't believe you have a place in this discussion. And of course I accept mediation, I always do. Not accepting looks bad ;) <big>''''']'''''</big> 10:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === ]: ('''] aka ] aka ]''' vs. ''']''') === | |||
| There is a long dispute going on with the Banja Luka article, specifically regarding the Bosnian Genocide. Please send a mediator. Thanks.--] 09:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === ]: ('''] vs. ''']''') === | |||
| User JDG is repeatedly reverting an edit I made to this page today, seems to have been systematically removing or rewriting my recent edits, and has announced on talk page that he will revert any contributions I make in the future unless I comply with his demand for "statement-by-statement" pre-review. User JDG refuses to cite any errors or policy violations in edits. Edit to which he he takes particular exception today involved correction of a surprisingly large number of factual errors over which there is no genuine dispute -- e.g., members of Dylan's band at first electric concerts, where Zimmerman family lived when Robert was born -- the rearrangement of discussion of events into chronological order, the elimination of lengthy quotes from (copyrighted) lyrics without substantive discussion, and the elimination of a few digressions (e.g., discussion of whether name "Zimmerman" sounds German). A few sweeping historical generalizations that were at best very, very dubious were removed -- e.g., an entire generation of Americans did not memorize "Subterranean Homesick Blues." (Judging by his live performances, neither did Dylan, but that's a different point . . .) <br /> | |||
| It's not appropriate for a single user to set himself as a de facto page moderator/administrator and establish his own review policies. | |||
| User: Monicasdude 3:29 PM EST 30 May 2005 | |||
| ::This dispute has apparently ended (at least for now); I don't know the protocol for removing the request. ] 16:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==June== | |||
| ===] and ]=== | |||
| A request for mediation regarding a user and administrator ] has been submitted. This user has hijacked pages relating to the Canadian Monarchy to push his strong republican POV (demonstrated easily by his editing history), debate and discussion has had no effect, and his attitude is bullyish and borderline offensive. There are two key areas where this is happening: on the ] page where he is trying to push his POV about the Crown in Canada being British, and on ] where he is trying to make his debate a part of the article. | |||
| The debate began at the ] page, and has become quite heated. ] does not accept factual argument and numerous proofs from both ] and myself, instead only asserting his own POV backed up by misinterpreted or completely irrelevant information. | |||
| A mediator clearly needs to step in to assist in a resolution to the arguments, as well as to control AndyL's behavior. --] 20:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === ] (several editors, but main disputes between ] and ]) === | |||
| A heated and at times very uncivil dispute over numerous sections of the article on this large paper has been raging for about a week and while both sides have conceded some smaller issues, larger ones remain; issues revolve around whether the article is balanced overall and whether several sections are presented properly and in an NPOV fashion. Based on interactions so far, I personally have little to no hope that Rangerdude and I can satisfactorily come to agreement on what remains without some help. The article was listed on RfC about a week ago without much result. There are a couple of other less involved editors who have weighed in on several items, some of which have come to a satisfactory conclusion, but some of which have not, in part because Rangerdude feels that a consensus of two or three people is not enough to overrule his own position. I feel that at this point we need some guidance to help break this stalemate; the way we are proceeding (or not proceeding) now is counterproductive and seems to be devolving into more fingerpointing than talking about content. Rangerdude has said he does not feel mediation is needed. Thanks. · ]<sup>]</sup> 23:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''' for purposes of clarification and factual correction. This dispute has indeed been very heated however it has not been without progress from any reasonable standpoint. ] has adamantly and repeatedly accused me of attempting to introduce POV material into this article, calling me a "POV warrior" among other names, but unfortunately lacks cognizance of her own very strong and often pervasive opinions on the subject of this article. To suggest that I "feel that a consensus of two or three people is not enough to overrule" my position is a blatant misrepresentation that has become characteristic of this individual user against me. The discussion to date has attracted a total of 6 participants by my count, including the two of us and four others who have been far less active. There have been no votes taken, and the sole incident where I have disputed her claims of "consensus" against me involved one single minor point where another editor posted a single brief concurrence with her position. That editor also happens to be the least active among the 6 involved and has not since returned to it to either respond to followup statements or discuss his position. I indicated on the article's talk page that I did not feel mediation was necessary because most of the differences are over phrasings and language used in the article that could be resolved '''IF''' Katefan0 would only take the time to identify, propose, and consider alternative options. Despite my repeated invitations for her responses and proposals of alternatives, I cannot even obtain her participation in that. I set up a place to do so on the talk page and made several proposals of my own, soliciting her responses, but each time she's not willing to budge even an inch from her strong POV perch. To indicate the level of hostility towards me that this editor has employed since her very entry into the discussion, she would not even respond to my requests that she reformat her source citations of the material she added to make them consistent with the style used throughout the remainder of the article. | |||
| :As things currently stand, I have made several proposals on some of the disputed language points and solicited her response as well as the response of others. This has involved several compromises and concessions on my part to accomodate her and other points of view, however Katefan0 remains seemingly steadfast in insisting that her own chosen version of a disputed section (which is strongly favorable to her POV) be supplemented for the existing version in full with little to no changes. For obvious reasons this is unacceptable, however I have been fully willing to work towards a compromise on the individual points under discussion. Unfortunately she has not, hence the rub. Thanks. ] 00:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Some of the current disputes: | |||
| #Whether a reference to a criminal investigation should use the word "criminal" as is the case in the statute that applies | |||
| #Whether groups should be identified by their legal registration (e.g. "Political Action Committee" and "501(c)6" | |||
| #Whether we should say that the Houston Chronicle was "consistent" between its published editorial and a related memorandum that both endorsed the same ballot position. | |||
| #How to phrase the description of a group's decision not to release its contributor lists ("refused" or "declined" or "chose not to" etc) | |||
| #Whether the Houston Chronicle's self-coverage of a legal dispute it was a party to should be used as a primary source | |||
| #Bringing the source citation methods into consistency ] 01:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **I purposefully did not get into the substance of the disagreements because I feared airing them would overwhelm this page with information that can easily be seen on the article's talk page. I'd be glad to answer any and all claims Rangerdude has made once mediation has been established, but this is not the place to have that discussion so for now I will refrain. · ]<sup>]</sup> 01:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support/Join''' I support the call for mediation on this article and I wish to join the mediation. ] 22:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Mediation has commenced on ]. ]|] 21:46, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| There is a clear dispute on this page, as indicated in ]. I have made major grammar edits, and someone has called them "idiotic" and has threatened to undo everyone of them. I probably spent 2 hours fixing the page. My intentions were not to offend or vandalize.--] 05:36, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *I've posted to ] and asked other disputants to respond to this request. ]|] 17:28, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| There is a dispute on this page between myself and ], as presented in the ] page and in the page's history log. Tequendamia strongly believes that the phrase "the American concern that Colombians migrated massively to Panama and claimed the restoration of sovereignty over this territory that was separated from Colombia by the US in 1903" should be included in the article. I argue that the phrase should be changed into "the concern that Colombians would migrate massively to Panama", specifically because Tequendamia has not provided evidence of a)the existence of such a concern being currently held by the U.S. government b)that Colombians migrating to Panama today would seek to realistically claim such sovereignity, among other points. Tequendamia has accused me of , whereas I have repeatedly tried to ask him to present evidence supporting his position. A little bit of a pointless "edit war" has erupted about this, hence perhaps some mediation from a third party would be necessary in order to solve this dispute. ] 16:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *] has informed ] of this request on their talk page. Awaiting response. ]|] 17:23, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===] redirection to ]=== | |||
| There is a dispute on these page between the group of users of ], ] and ], with the users ], ], ], and ]. In the ] page it has already been agreed upon earlier than the ] article will be redirected to ], but a day after the move has been done ] has taken upon himself to restore the Furry article and consider the act of the other party as ''blanking'' and ''vandalism'' (notably in the ] page). After this there have been several attempts to redirect the page again, and the restoration of the Almafeta version of the Furry article. As this is starting to get out of hand (there have been at least three restorations and three redirections, despite I having informed in the ] page to please make edits on the ] page rather than resurrecting the old ] page), I hope some outside mediation would help calm ] down. Thank you! -- ] 04:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Mediation requires the other person is willing to do it too and is informed of the request. Have you done so? ]|] 08:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **I wouldn't be interested in mediation, for the reasons listed in ]. Additionally, I see no reason to merge two distinct articles about two distinct topics, when both can be made into full articles as opposed to one being a section of another. ] 21:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *] has informed me he's contacted ]. ]|] 13:02, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *I was not personally informed, but a message was left on ], so everyone involved should know about this. I am willing to mediate. --]|] 13:34, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **Erm, how do you square that with ] request above? He claims you've supported Almafeta. ]|] 17:19, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***Well, I thought the RFM was also directed at me, as I'm mentioned in it. I do support Almafeta's view. --]|] 17:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ****Thing is, Conti, you can't mediate on a topic you're informed about (and thus have an opinion one way or the other about). ] 21:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *My mistake, ContiE. I thought you wanted to mediate the case as an official mediator. But I guess you wanted to be part of the case. ]|] 21:54, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *So Almafeta et al want two seperate pages and Grumpyhan et al want the pages to be merged. Under what circumstances do the "mergists" think a seperate article on ] would be useful. What kind and how many info should it contain? ]|] 21:59, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ** Were there enough information on the subject distinct from what is already presented in the ] article to warrant a second article, which we see as unlikely at the present time and, indeed, for some time. This issue has been discussed somewhat on the ] page, presently in the archived sections. -- ] 19:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **I think it was ] who suggested that ] be about ''furry art'', that is to say art created by the furry fandom. That's the only suggestion I've heard. This is really frustrating because I can't think of any encyclopedic, distinct information that would warrant its own article under ] that wouldnt fit in a subsection of ]. This is an especially difficult move since people have entirely different ideas of what the word ] means, I mean I think it refers directly to its fandom, but other people (mainly furry themselves) maintain that all anthropomorphic animals are called "furries" and that this sort of information belongs in an encyclopedia. I understand the former, but the latter is what one small subculture (relative to the population at large) calls a very vague artistic and literative symbology! In other words, only ''furries'' will refer to comics like ] and books like ] using the word ]. This is why it's been so hard for us "mergists" and the other party to agree on something that could go on the ] page. I have no problems with adding new content to the ] page, but because of all this, I'm not sure what kind of information would be right! It would have to take a few things into account though, things ], ], ] and I have gone over many times on the talk page: | |||
| ***The term ] is only used by furries in the ] to describe anthropomorphic animals, or alternatively, zoomorphic people. When it isn't used by that specific group of people, it's used by people who are refering to ''creations'' of the furry fandom or to members of the furry fandom themselves. If you've been on the internet long enough, you'll know that the term ] has taken on a LOT more than that simple meaning. | |||
| ***If trying to define something like ''furry art'', there is NO clear definition of where furry art ends and similar, non-furry art begins. Any and all attempts made to define it will probably be later edited so that it says the exact opposite of what the editor wrote. I'm not exaggerating. | |||
| ***If seperated, the ] article should be on a topic that can exist independently of the corresponding ]. If not completely independently, it should at least be able to hold its own weight. | |||
| :Sorry if this went on a little long, but yeah, that's it. --] 19:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree that mediation is necessary. ] has made a whole section for personal attacks against me on the ] page, and his behavior has been wildly accusatory for some time. While I am fairly tolerant and reasonable in the face of such behavior, making a whole section in which he accuses me of being on some crusade against ] is taking it a little too far. --] 06:04, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Editors have started negotiations on ]. I'll keep an eye on it. ]|] 21:03, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===] this article needs an unbiased person to define the FACTS of the Council of Jerusalem from Acts 15. 18:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) === | |||
| :This is currently the subject of a 3o, which I'm undertaking myself. I don't think official mediation is required yet. ] 12:02, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *If that's the case, please post an ] or ask for a third opinion (see link on top of page). ]|] 10:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Based on a suggestion by Kim Bruning I will send this to the ]. - ]|] 20:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === Harmonics Theory deletion discussion=== | |||
| In the page ], ] has made remarks (not for the first time in this discussion) to the effect "'''Tomes and his sock puppets'''" and despite my request to justify or remove the remark he has not done so after a week. I have at all times been totally honest in the discussion about what actions I have taken. I stated that I had invited several people to the discussion who had relevant knowledge. In the last round their votes were disallowed even though they had relevant expert knopwledge. There is no need for Dcflecks remarks. I can be contact by email at ray(at)tomes(dot)biz if required. I request that someone ask Dcfleck to remove his remarks. ] 02:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Suggested other lines of action on his talk page including requesting a sockpuppet check on himself and asking the other user for proof. I don't think this would require full mediation, but feel free to drop him a message if you got other ideas. - ]|] 19:32, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===], ], ], ]=== | |||
| I recently started editing the ] article, where ] and ] (and to a much lesser extent a few others) were already engaged in a heated and antagonistic debate, mutual reverts, etc. Following an unrelated edit by me, and my expression of a viewpoint that disagreed with Stevietheman, he has begun reverting ''my'' edits, even those explicitly identified as being in accordance with Misplaced Pages recommendations (e.g punctuation). Most recently, he has (inexplicably) drawn the matter of my sexual orientation into it on my Talk page. The parties appear intractable on content-related issues, and there are undoubtedly instances of personal attacks and other inappropriate behaviour all around. Although I have made an RFC for the article itself, this has escalated beyond that, and I feel it will require mediation involving the three parties to resolve. ] 04:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Told Tverbeek all parties should be made aware of the request. Awaiting response from ] and ]. Will make further enquiries if reponse doesn't follow. - ]|] 19:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Stevietheman has declined mediation. (see )- ]|] 17:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **This is merely on the basis that I don't have the stomach to further argue with the two other gentlemen. I just want this to pass and let's get on with other things. I won't go anywhere near the ] article any longer... this should be seen as a solution without need for mediation. — ] <sup>] | ]</sup> 18:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===]: ] Vs. ]=== | |||
| In the past, the invoice "Macintosh Plus" of Misplaced Pages was improved by a section called "Trivia". In this section there were added rumors about the appearance of Macintosh Plus in Star trek IV movie (]). Some mac zealots, thinking they were funny, added rumors about why Macintosh was used in that movie instead of another computer (Commodore Amiga). | |||
| As an Amigan I find these rumors very insulting regarding this platform, because these gossips haunted the image of Amiga since 1986. | |||
| Now fortunately I find new evidences that those gossips regarding the greed by Commodore Computers were false and I changed the trivia section of Macintosh Plus file in order to match new evidences. Then I also | |||
| explained it in the discussion of Macintosh Plus topic. Unfortunately user GRAHAMUK continues to delete new arguments I added. | |||
| This is not a matter of "revisionism". this is a matter of justice, because due to the increasing importance of Misplaced Pages worldwide, a relevant number of Macintosh and "History of Computers" sites everywhere cutted&pasted whole story of Mac Plus from Misplaced Pages site and reported also the rumors between Macintosh and Amiga which was present notwithstanding in a Macintosh Article. | |||
| Although Misplaced Pages is not guilty for that, unfortunately the organization contributed to spread worldwide false rumors that are insulting for the | |||
| users of a computer platform. I think that Misplaced Pages organization must take its responsibilities, by unveiling new evidences to the vaste public of its readers worldwide. | |||
| So I ask you moderators to accept the fact I will revert again back Macintosh Plus trivia section as I read it for the first time (i.e. including ancient rumors about the Mac and Amiga) but to be polite, I will keep the new evidences I found only in the discussion page, in | |||
| order to not include in the main Mac Plus page some topics that are not relevant for Macintosh history. | |||
| But also I will include an indication for the benefit of readers to check the discussion page, so they could find there more informations (as clearly stated in the rules of Misplaced Pages: ]. | |||
| And I hope that nobody will delete the indication pointing to discussion page anymore, due to a matter of keeping always visible the truth even if "unrelevant", "unwanted" or "embarassing". | |||
| Also I ask you moderators to warn user GRAHAMUK not to delete anymore the trivia section as originally traded, because he has no rights to hide informations to other readers even if these informations deal only | |||
| relatively with Macintosh (and included information about Amiga also) only due to a matter of rumors reported by chance. This is my most important request to you moderators. | |||
| Also I want to signal that the other competitor abused of "Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete" Misplaced Pages rule, and finally he abused of language in the discussion page of Macintosh Plus where I was | |||
| trying to resolve the dispute between us. | |||
| All these facts forced me to request you for moderation. | |||
| Sincerely, Raffaele --] 10:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * ] and ] have dropped ] a line with alternative suggestions on dealing with this issue. - ]|] 19:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * ] read about suggestions ] and ], and disagree. | |||
| Ask yourself why a computer that is "unrelated" to the issue was tolerated into Macintosh Plus page almost an entire year (to be precise since may 2004 inserted by user 24.26.93.10 and until I revealed the story was different as originally traded). | |||
| Evidence says that Amiga was tolerated because it was considered a joke. | |||
| When Amiga become "embarassing" for that Macintosh legend, due to my intervention, then it was simply deleted from the issue as it never existed before. | |||
| Propaganda in Stalinan Russia was more polite. | |||
| To solve this moderation consider also this proposal of mine: | |||
| I do not want that my changes to Macintosh+ Trivia will appear anymore in the main Macintosh Plus page, because my modifications are unrelated to Macintosh Plus topic. | |||
| Hope this fact will be appreciated by readers mac editoras of the article and moderators. | |||
| But obviously the evidences I found should remain into discussion page of Macintosh Plus article. | |||
| Also I ask (as reparation) that whole Star-trek Trivia (including Amiga presence) will be reverted as originally traded since may 2004 into Macintosh Plus page and a note should be written pointing to Mac Plus discussion page (in which there are the facts I found and revealed to the public of wikipedia). | |||
| I want only this line into brackets should appear: | |||
| -> (See also discussion page about other evidences on these trivia) | |||
| I think it is a honest request to return MacPlus page as orignally traded since may 2004. | |||
| (Nobody complained of Amiga into Mac Plus page, before my intervention) | |||
| sincerely, --] 00:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===]: ] ]=== | |||
| :NoPuzzleStranger is constantly posting lies about my work. I asked him to stop, but he goes on and posts claims at ] that he cannot support by reliable data. Some of his claims are allready proven wrong but he goes on and on. He is really annoying in the way he works. I set up a section in the talk page but he stopped to work there. I finally left his comment, and wrote that this is only comment by him and that he insists on it. Than he said I insist on the content of the whole page, what is a lie. ] ] 13:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : now he blanked the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AWikiProject_Subnational_entities%2FNaming&diff=0&oldid=15342974 | |||
| :Tobias Conradi has gone on a mass-moving campaign in order to install his preferred format for naming subnational entities in a fait accompli, without first establishing a consensus, and despite numerous protests. I was simply trying to point out that fact on ] - a page entirely written by Tobias Conradi, which he also uses to give the impression that his personal opinion is established policy (e.g. citing that link in edit summaries when he reverts something to his format). The page points out that his format is "current use" - which is true, but only because of his own moves, which number in the thousands. ] 13:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :NoPuzzleStranger is again lieing. He did not simply pointed out something, but called my work "crusade". When I asked him to provide statistics for his claim that the status of the "Current use" section is only like that because I unilateraly mass-moved hundreds or thousends of pages he failed to provide this statistics. I left his note in the page but added that this is only a claim by him without statistics. I myself started to provide statistics, showing he was wrong, because all what was current use was either in the format before, moved by me, or reverted by others. All disputes with third parties have been solved. He is also lieing if he states the page was entirely written by me. As can be seen from the history there also where other contributers. ] ] 15:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *I've send both a message reminding them to avoid loaded language and to continue/start talking on their respective user talkpages without accusing each other. We may need to keep an eye on things to avoid further escalation. - ]|] 14:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===] and ]=== | |||
| :specifics moved off this space by Ed Poor - and maybe that's part of the problem. Would another mediator than me, please re-insert & properly format this RFM? Thanks. ] ] | |||
| *I've asked Improv to take a look at this . - ]|] 13:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==== What's the status of my RfM concerning Ed Poor? ==== | |||
| Either I've missed an email (entirely possible, since I get quite a lot) or one of the two parties in this dispute is foot-dragging. Please help. | |||
| Since I filed this RfM, there have been '''multiple unauthorized edits by Ed of my userpage''', which Ed now claims was unintentional. | |||
| I have reasons to doubt his sincerity on such matters, since he '''deleted half of my complaint in transferring it to a talk page.''' | |||
| He then '''attempted to edit the material related to this matter that I placed on my userpage.''' | |||
| I wish to pursue the RfM even if he does not. He is now moving on to other matters on WP, which is fine, as long as this is one of them. | |||
| If I've missed an e-mail message on this, please accept my apologies. | |||
| Many thanks for any help you can provide. You can find more background on this complaint at my userpage. (assuming Ed hasn't vandalized it while I wasn't looking). ] 14:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *See my note, just above your comment, I've asked an mediator to look into it, but it may be a while before they respond as they may have other things to do during the weekend. Please give the mediator a little more time to respond. - ]|] 19:46, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Archives== | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<--CURRENT ARCHIVE<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 19:35, 12 November 2018
Redirect to: