Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:53, 15 July 2012

Archives
Barnstars · The and Non-notable relatives · 2· 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35

This editor is a Master Editor and is entitled to display this Platinum Editor Star.

Wiki quotes:

1. "Just because you are offended doesn't mean that I insulted you".
2. "Calling somebody childish is not insulting".
3. "More contrived distractions, intimidation, divide and conquer attempts and harassment". WP:Boomerang

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning The Beatles, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/The Beatles, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:WGFinley (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Mimi

Sorry to do this but I must take issue with you about some of the assertions in Mimi Smith’s Misplaced Pages entry. Please forgive me if I am the umpteenth person to have said some of these things but, believe it or not, I hadn’t looked at Mimi’s saga until about a month ago so these comments may be very late in the day They say there’s no error more difficult to expunge than an entrenched error; and there are one or two in Mimi’s account. Perhaps I should start with one which is the easiest to verify. This is the statement that;- “Menlove Avenue suffered extensive damage during World War II”. Nothing of the sort. When I was in Liverpool in the late 40’s most of the bomb damaged buildings had been cleared away but there was very little started by way of rebuilding (you may know we called the empty spaces “Bomb Sites). I travelled Menlove Avenue twice daily to Liverpool , either by bike or tram, for months and can guarantee that there were no scars from the war anywhere along it’s length (all two miles of it). There was some bomb damage in Garston - about three miles from the Woolton end - and some off Smithdown Road about two miles from the other end but none at all in Menlove Avenue. You can easily test the veracity of this assertion by driving down Menlove Avenue today when you will find all the 1930’s detached houses and semis in (more or less) the same state as they were when they were first built. There have been some new-builds since but these are mostly 1960’s built on sites that were open fields in the 1950’s. For example the space between 251 and Vale Road - now built on - was an open field when I lived there. The left hand side, going towards Liverpool, is still mostly green open space - that is the golf course and Calderstones Park.

As for the story of Mimi and the incendiary bombs (pleural!) I find this hard to countenance. There were some incendiaries landed on the golf course opposite 251 on one raid and I suppose one of them could have landed in Mimi’s back garden. But who would tackle an incendiary burning harmlessly in the open, especially with something as valuable, in wartime, as a difficult-to-replace blanket? Some incendiaries had an explosive head designed to kill or maim anyone trying to put them out. I helped my Dad as a Fire-Watcher in the war and The Ministry of Information told us all to stay away from incendiaries that were doing no harm. An incendiary coming through the roof and burning in the loft is one thing - but burning itself out harmlessly in a garden? Lave well alone!

The other statement I take issue with is the Smiths “bought a semi-detached house called “Mendips”. I don’t believe the house was ever called “Mendips” when the Smiths bought it or when Mimi lived there. I never knew the house to have a name when I was there nor at any time during my periodic visits up to 1954 when I graduated and left the university. If there had been any sort of name-plate on 251 Menlove Avenue during that time I think I would have noticed. My guess is either the owner after Mimi gave the house a name or - more likely - it was dreamed up by Yoko Ono or her publicist before she gave it to The National Trust. J.C. Cavaleer (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your suspicions regarding Mimi, because she was caught out a couple of times telling porky pies. The only problem is verifying that she was bending the truth. That can only be done by a reference in a book/newspaper or the internet. Could you think of a way to find out about claims for bomb damage during WWII?--andreasegde (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Final warning

Stop it, now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop what?--andreasegde (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You know perfectly well what. I have re-opened the discussion to get you banned on ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please use indents correctly. FYI, I did not remove anything or stop anything. I was informing editors about this:

The RfC at this page has now been completed, and a mediation page has been started here. To add anything here while the mediation case is being looked at is not recommended.

Please stop deleting useful information.--andreasegde (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to you to "recommend" whether or not to continue the polls. I see no reason why they shouldn't continue. I, for instance, am not going to take part in the mediation, but that doesn't mean I want the opinion I registered in the polls to go lost and forgotten. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If you look at this, you will see that another editor has said, "Okay, sure I'll stop until this is settled."--andreasegde (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to you, or any other editor, to declare the straw poll closed, much less to edit war to that end. And since you're so big on "obeying" and "respecting" the admins, I'd like to helpfully inform you that Fut.Perf. is an admin. szyslak (t) 19:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll ignore the remark about "obeying" and "respecting", unless you can show me a diff where I said that.--andreasegde (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that was some other guy who made some rather daft remarks about that. But in any case, I'm not acting as an admin here, according to the rules. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I can remove the "recommended", and rephrase it to however you wish, but the information should be noted. Having two polls running when a mediation case has been opened will surely confuse the situation.--andreasegde (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The RfC at this page has now been completed, and a mediation page has been started here. ?--andreasegde (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No, neither of the two RfCs has completed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

When a mediation case has been opened, do you think it wise to conduct polls?--andreasegde (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not. The few people who are going to take part in the mediation won't have any authority to decide this on the behalf of the community anyway, independently of the opinions of the many more editors who have already commented on the polls. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

1: So, as one Rfc at Sgt: Pepper's has been completed, you agree with opening two more? I find that absolutely confusing, and destructive to the mediation. 2: Editors should be informed that a mediation case has been opened. Is that allowed, or not?--andreasegde (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. What RfC has concluded, and what two more have been opened? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You said yourself (above), "No, neither of the two RfCs has completed".--andreasegde (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I said that. So, which are you saying has closed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The one at Sgt. Pepper. That's why the mediation case was accepted. (It was suspended until that particular RfC was over). The two new ones are at The Beatles, and Paul McCartney.--andreasegde (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea what those mediation people think they are doing, but right now the RfC isn't closed, as anybody can see. It's still open, and has attracted new opinions as recently as a few hours ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Then I suggest you contact WGFinley, as he represents the mediation committee. I ask again if editors should be informed about the mediation case.--andreasegde (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)