| Revision as of 15:59, 18 August 2005 editUriah923 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,621 edits archive & begin dispute resolution← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:55, 18 August 2005 edit undoResearcher99 (talk | contribs)511 editsm →Dispute Resolution: While I thank you and welcome your help, I did not agree for TALK to have the evidence removed yet.Next edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ] and ] have agreed to allow me (as an unoffical mediator) to guide them through a process that will hopefully end the dispute and provide an accurate and NPOV article on polygamy. See the archives for a history of the dispute. ] 15:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC) | ] and ] have agreed to allow me (as an unoffical mediator) to guide them through a process that will hopefully end the dispute and provide an accurate and NPOV article on polygamy. See the archives for a history of the dispute. ] 15:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| : I agreed to welcoming your help to the situation. Please understand that I definitely did not agree to this TALK page being archived until the confidence for proceeding to a resolution can occur. There has been too much attempts in the past to hide the evidence of ]'s past abuse. Archiving simply hides their extreme abuse of me. When they are ready to work WITH me in a WIN-WIN approach, then I would agree to that evidence of their abuses being removed. As long as the NPOV tag is still there in the article, they are showing they are not even willing to have any good faith act. I did not and do not agree without good faith acts being demonstrated to show we are on the path to a WIN-WIN. Otherwise, nothing changes, and their abuse only continues, and you will have, probably unknowingly, enabled it. I appreciate your desire to help, and I welcomed that if it is fair and not biased toward the bully abuser. Archiving the evidence before the good faith act is performed by ] leaves me further abused here. I repeat, I genuinely appreciate your help, but I need this rectified. As I know you want me to be able to trust you (and I want to!), then if we can rectify that, then I will be ready to accept the archiving. Thank you for understanding. ] 16:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === Top-level outline === | === Top-level outline === | ||
| The first thing I want from both ] and ] is a '''top-level outline''' of the ideal contents of the article. This should be '''brief''' and contain no text - only headings and ''maybe'' some sub-headings. As ] is going to be out of town, we will allow approximately a week for both of you to provide the outline. ] 15:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC) | The first thing I want from both ] and ] is a '''top-level outline''' of the ideal contents of the article. This should be '''brief''' and contain no text - only headings and ''maybe'' some sub-headings. As ] is going to be out of town, we will allow approximately a week for both of you to provide the outline. ] 15:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| : Thank you for removing the time pressure on me that way. ] 16:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:55, 18 August 2005
 | This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Berkeley Journal of International Law |
Archive
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4
Dispute Resolution
Researcher99 and Nereocystis have agreed to allow me (as an unoffical mediator) to guide them through a process that will hopefully end the dispute and provide an accurate and NPOV article on polygamy. See the archives for a history of the dispute. Uriah923 15:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- I agreed to welcoming your help to the situation. Please understand that I definitely did not agree to this TALK page being archived until the confidence for proceeding to a resolution can occur. There has been too much attempts in the past to hide the evidence of Nereocystis's past abuse. Archiving simply hides their extreme abuse of me. When they are ready to work WITH me in a WIN-WIN approach, then I would agree to that evidence of their abuses being removed. As long as the NPOV tag is still there in the article, they are showing they are not even willing to have any good faith act. I did not and do not agree without good faith acts being demonstrated to show we are on the path to a WIN-WIN. Otherwise, nothing changes, and their abuse only continues, and you will have, probably unknowingly, enabled it. I appreciate your desire to help, and I welcomed that if it is fair and not biased toward the bully abuser. Archiving the evidence before the good faith act is performed by Nereocystis leaves me further abused here. I repeat, I genuinely appreciate your help, but I need this rectified. As I know you want me to be able to trust you (and I want to!), then if we can rectify that, then I will be ready to accept the archiving. Thank you for understanding. Researcher 16:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Top-level outline
The first thing I want from both Researcher99 and Nereocystis is a top-level outline of the ideal contents of the article. This should be brief and contain no text - only headings and maybe some sub-headings. As Researcher99 is going to be out of town, we will allow approximately a week for both of you to provide the outline. Uriah923 15:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for removing the time pressure on me that way. Researcher 16:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)