| Revision as of 05:49, 21 May 2011 editDreadstar (talk | contribs)53,180 edits handy template← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:13, 30 May 2011 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 10d) to User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 16.Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ⚫ | == Template == | ||
| == Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-25/List of sovereign states == | |||
| Please, move a couple of comments (15:05, 12 April 2011, 16:18, 12 April 2011) from "Limited addition proposal" to "Sandbox 3 (again)" section where they logically belong. ] (]) 19:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Give me a bit on that. I was just heading out as I saw this, and I'll need to review the material again (I've been distracted by other matters recently). But I'll see to it. --] 20:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, no need to rush. ] (]) 06:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::The debate is nearing a partial consensus now, but we need mediator involvement. Can you join us again? We're at this point: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-01-25/List_of_sovereign_states#3g ] (]) 15:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Could you post at the top of the page where you moved the archive to and link to it please - beside the infobox would be most ideal. Thanks ] (]) 19:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} sorry, thought I'd done that already--] 20:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::The discussion has degraded. I've been "assured" multiple times that debate on various issues will continue, but nobody, besides perhaps Ladril, seems inclined to engage me in ''real'' discussion. They're instead focused on ''forcing'' a consensus and making insinuations about my political persuasion. Can I request closing some of the threads and starting a fresh one? It'd be easier if we had bullet points outlining the various options with regards to each issue. I realise that everyone is "over it", but I'd like to at least ''examine'' all possible oulets before forcing a rough consensus. '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>''' 09:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::before I respond on the article page, what exactly do you want to say over there that hasn't been said ten times already? The way I'm seeing this, there's a rough consensus on a majority of points, but you and Alinor are simply refusing to make ''any'' compromises at all on a few smaller points. If you're not going to work with the other editors towards a common goal, mediation is pointless. all of you '''need''' to commit yourself to some kind of binding resolution, because if any one of you refuses to do so, this debate will literally never end. | |||
| :::That's the way it is. | |||
| :::Right now I'm contemplating going to the page and saying that the mediation should be closed as irresolvable. the steps that will happen after that are as follows: | |||
| :::*the current majority will return to the page and impose the current preferred version over all your objections. | |||
| :::*you and Alinor will continue to object, and the wrangling will go on and on | |||
| :::*eventually you will all end up in formal mediation or arbitration, where the decision will be taken out of your hands, and most likely several of you (particularly those on the minority side) will get topic banned from this article and all related articles. | |||
| :::Is that how you want this to work out? because if it isn't, you need to start actively looking for a compromise here. Convince me that you're actually interested in reaching a compromise and not just being a stick-in-the-mud, otherwise I'm going to have to start reaching for a close. --] 17:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{Outdent}} Apologies for the lateness of this reply. I'm in a remote region of Myanmar, and I only get internet access when in major towns. This reply is likely to be too late, but I'll give one anyway. I understand your frustration and your eagerness to be rid of this. But your comments about my receptiveness are not appreciated. I preferred an earlier sandbox, but I've now accepted this one as a starting point. I opposed a single list; the draft is now a single list. I opposed the use of the Vienna formula as a sorting criteria; the draft now uses exactly this. I opposed the rearrangement of columns; the columns have been changed. Plenty of concessions have been made. The points where I continue to hold out are more contentious and which should ideally be decided by a ] or ] with how best to handle them. You're free to perceive my involvement as a "stick in the mud", but I'm also within my right to object to something that I feel would not be an improvement to the project. You're free to close the case whenever you wish, but I'm also within my right to request further input. Agreed? ] (]) 05:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Had you noticed this has reopened? I only did today. I stopped looking in after discussion faded away. Now I've put it on my watchlist. I've just checked and find the preceding one was opened just over two years ago and has still not been closed and archived. ] (]) 14:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ==Template== | ||
| is a fantastic template! I've used it several times...very nice and easy to use. ] <small>]</small> 05:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | is a fantastic template! I've used it several times...very nice and easy to use. ] <small>]</small> 05:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:13, 30 May 2011
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Template
This is a fantastic template! I've used it several times...very nice and easy to use. Dreadstar ☥ 05:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)