| Revision as of 10:44, 11 February 2006 editEssjay (talk | contribs)21,413 editsNo edit summary← 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 ] | |||
| {{/Rfm-header}} <!-- Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Rfm-header --> | |||
| Please list new requests at the top of the section 'New Requests'. Use LEVEL TWO HEADERS (==). A ] will be assigned to take care of your case. <small> | |||
| == New Requests == | |||
| ===Users Ambi and Virtual Steve – Issue Redlink Reduction=== | |||
| I am seeking mediation assistance with regards a dispute concerning my attempt to tidy the wiki by removal of redlinks as per ] and ] dogmatic refusal to allow any adjustments along these lines. I have attempted to discuss this matter with her – and that discussion has gotten heated on both sides (see combined talk pages). In particular I am concerned by long term redlinks and on that point I am more than happy to concede that some of my removals may be too early for all wikipedians but I do not concede that redlinks should be allowed to stand ad infinitum. For a single example (although the dispute is not about this page per se) this article ] which has not been added to or adjusted since April 5, 2005 is in Ambi’s view (as posted on her user page) to be '''quite good'''. I would not be allowed to remove the redlinks on that page that have been there for almost a year and which make the article look clumsy and feel unprofessional. If I did I would be threatened that my alterations are close to vandalism and then would be threatened with blocking if such changes continue. Indeed Ambi has even gone so far as to revert redlinks that I personally created in my own major articles. The continuum of our conflict is probably that I consider that I am following both the consensus view/s and the encyclopedic view that redlinks are generally clumsy and should be discouraged – and if not discouraged totally able to be removed when a reasonable amount of time has passed. I also have a concern with Ambi’s method of administrator ''support'' but that may be her way of doing things and beyond mediation. Whilst it may be impossible to clear up this matter perfectly there must be a way to gain middle ground on this and not be threatened on every edit. Please can you help? ] 12:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===To be accepted by committee, RE: Daredevil=== | |||
| Requesting OnWiki (public) between ] and ] RE: ]. There have been several disagreements between us two parties. Tenebrae asked for, and consent from GodzillaWax was given, for mediation. The current dispute stems from this paragraph below. | |||
| :'''Nocenti and Romita Jr.''' | |||
| :A round-robin of creators contributed in the year that followed Born Again: writers Mark Gruenwald, Danny Fingeroth, Steve Englehart (under the pseudonym "John Harkness"), and Ann Nocenti, and pencilers Steve Ditko, Barry Windsor-Smith, Louis Williams, Sal Buscema, Todd McFarlane, Keith Pollard, and Chuck Patton. Longshot co-creator Nocenti, who'd written #236, became the regular writer for a long, stable, four-and-a-quarter year run of all but two issues from #238-291 (Jan. 1987 - April 1991). John Romita Jr. joined as penciler from #270-289 (Sept. 1989 - Feb. 1991), and was generally inked by Al Williamson. The well-received and award-winning team specifically addressed societal issues, with Murdock, now running a non-profit urban legal center, confronting sexism, racism and nuclear proliferation while fighting supervillains. Nocenti's run is also of note for introducing the popular antagonist Typhoid Mary, a supporting character from #254-263. | |||
| GodzillaWax and I have gone back and forth over whether something can be called "well-received" or a "stable run" when there was a 4 1/4-year run after the previous year's round-robin; when artist John Romita Jr. became a comics star with the series; and when inker Al Williamson won awards for the series three years running. I noted in the Talk page that "well-received" does not necessarily mean critically acclaimed, citing McDonald's burgers and Stephen King novels; and I cited Merriam-Webster's #1 definition for the adjective "stable" ("1 a : firmly established : FIXED, STEADFAST b : not changing or fluctuating"), which he does not accept. | |||
| I also ask mediation over GodzillaWax's frequent use of insults. I'm sure he feels put-upon by me as well, though I would note that other editors on the History page and elsewhere have been insulted by him with phrases like, "Will the Virgin Brigade please let their balls drop?" Thanks very much for taking the time and trouble as an Arbitration/Mediation volunteer. — ] 23:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===] and related pages=== | |||
| ] has repeatedly tried to edit ] against concensus, and just ended up breaking the 3RR for the THIRD time now (and is now serving a 48-hour block). It began when without any discussion. On Jan. 28, 2006, ] realized some of these were done without concensus and then Nlu and myself (]) started to revert some of these. Then an Edit War broke out, resulting in Appleby being blocked numerous times. The pages involved are ] (capital), ] (small), ], and ]. Some discussion already took place in ] (and below) regarding whether ] (and ]) should redirect to ] or ]. A later Edit War shifted to arguments about the wording of the text in ], where the Edit War continued without the discussion page being hardly used. And there are more people involved now. I have requested admin ] to lock the ] page while we pursue mediation and/or arbitration. I am requesting a mediator to clarify the position of each person involved, to facilitate any further discussion/mediation/arbitration.--] 19:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Dispute regarding the relevance of the article. Factual accuracy and neutrality tag is placed on the article while no specific concerns abut the content were presented. Research was presented stating the relevance of the article and common use of the term in media and academia. Dispute between ] ] and ]. For more see ].--] 18:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * No specific concerns abut the content include talk page that is 87 kilobytes long. Common use of term which is presented is not the same as its use in the article. ] 07:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Do not edit below this line. --> | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Pending}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Current}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Archives}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 19:35, 12 November 2018
Redirect to: