![]() | As of this group of archived requests, cases are being collapsed for readability. This archive also marks the start of the new request format. The RFM archival process otherwise remains unchanged. |
Rejected request for mediation concerning Turpan
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Turpan[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Survivor registry
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Survivor registry[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]
The other user Arthur Rubin refuses to allow more specific information to be included in the articles concerned in this dispute. He is blocking - use of the full date of the terrorist attack even in situations when the date is not being quoted or part of a proper name. - description of the perpetrator of the attack - location of the attack
He has sent me letters saying that my insertion of these facts in articles on this topic are inappropriate even though some of them (the full date and perpetrator) are mentioned in the main article on the topic: "The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001." I cannot reason with a person who edits out facts written with proper grammar from a supposed encyclopedia article because of that person's opinions on style or other opinions. 9/11 is shorthand. It is not the proper name for that date in time nor is it a proper name for the terrorist attack in question. The thousands of other terrorist attacks that have occurred do not go by "month/date" only on Wikipedia articles unless they are dates used in spoken or written quotes. This terrorist attack happened 9 years ago in one part of the world. It is not known as "9/11" to millions of English-speaking people around the world any more than "4/19" is known as the date in of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh.
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Note from User:Golbez[edit]I've indef blocked this user; he's been edit warring all day solely to add who committed 9/11 and where in the country it happened to multiple articles, then when he hit 3RR with his IP he made an account. First of all, someone making an account named "Editforaccuracy" rarely is. (Our User:Neutrality is the only user who can get away with such a name :P) Second of all, he came to RFM without even attempting to engage Arthur Rubin - whose reverts were valid - in conversation. This person clearly has no interest in actually improving the pedia. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Xavier College
| ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Xavier College[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Dadivank Monastery
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dadivank Monastery[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]
(Disputed edit [2])
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Andre Geim
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Andre Geim[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning White Argentine
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
White Argentine[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Fractional-reserve banking
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fractional-reserve banking[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fractional-reserve_banking#This_article_indicates_that_much_of_the_FRB_article_is_wrong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Money_multiplier Issues to be mediated[edit]
Weather to allow a comment in the main article stating that it is disputed that the money multiplier puts a cap on money creation. If issue one is allowed, then what reference should/could be used.
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning The Man Who Would Be Queen
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Man Who Would Be Queen[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Possibly less involved users but who commented on the talk page recently:
Issues to be mediated[edit]
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Ed Miliband
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ed Miliband[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]
Comment (Not sure where to put this, sorry). There is nothing to mediate here. This is a BLP matter. A subject has declared himself to be either agnostic or atheist (ymmv) - certainly he's explicitly denied being Jewish "in the religious sense". It would therefore clearly be inappropriate to have a prominent infobox suggest that he was "religiously" Jewish. Some/one editor(s) are making spurious claims to the contrary, which have no support in common sense, policy or consensus. This has been explained countless times, but there's a strong case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and flogging dead horses. Uninvolved people have joined the debate and explained the same thing, no joy. Now a mediation request. Mediation can't solve this, the editor(s) concerned simply have to drop it - or uninvolved admins will have to assess whether we are at the point to tendentious and disruptive editing.--Scott Mac 12:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Comment Scott Mac—you say, "It would therefore clearly be inappropriate to have a prominent infobox suggest that he was 'religiously' Jewish." But of course the Infobox would not be saying that he was "religiously" Jewish. The Infobox would simply read, "Religion: Jewish". Here we see an exact formulation of that field in an Infobox by Notable Names Database. There is nothing "inappropriate" about saying he is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Comment Bus stop, by definition 'Religion= Jewish' should imply that someone is religiously Jewish. In the case of Ed Miliband this label would be completely unacceptable, as he has proclaimed that he is not religious. You are making something out of a non-issue. He is not religiously Jewish, so therefore Religion= Jew should not be used. I suggest that this mediation be continued through it's course if you are unable to understand this point that has now been put forward far too many times now for our sanity. We've now reached a new consensus on the talk page to reach a compromise position, but you still continue to debate the point. Please try and see it our way.--Topperfalkon (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Comment Like other editors here, I'm having difficulty understanding what this mediation is about. Topperfalkon proposed a compromise, it was accepted, and there's been nothing on the article's Talk: page about it in over a week now. What else could be gained by a mediation? Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Comment To be fair, I did make the request for mediation well before I actually proposed that compromise. It's just taken them a while to inform everyone it seems. Mediation isn't particularly necessary anymore, but it might help those that are still against the compromise to understand why it was reached (and that it was a good compromise, hopefully).--Topperfalkon (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Comment Topperfalkon—compromise and contradiction are two different ideas. The Infobox at the moment reads "Religion: None". Yet every source asserts unambiguously that Miliband is Jewish. Those sources include Miliband himself who states unequivocally that he is Jewish. The Infobox should be reading "Religion: Jewish", just as this Infobox reads. Unless you have personal expertise that you can bring to bear on this subject, it would seem that the proper operating procedure would be to follow WP:NOR's dictum: In short, stick to the sources. Bus stop (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning User talk:Kwamikagami
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
User talk:Kwamikagami[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Ratiaria
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ratiaria[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Talk:Ratiaria#Why_remove_these_categories_and_stubs Issues to be mediated[edit]
Invoking the overcategorization advice in Wikipedia:Categorization stands for some of categories, but not for the majority, and not in the case of a new article which needs more exposure and editors.
The goal of this article was to present an ancient Dacian town, later an important Roman city. From the beginning, the article clearly mentioned the location in modern Bulgaria. The intention of the existing categories and stubs was to bring interested users and especially editors to participate constructively. The article is intended to be added to portals/projects on Ancient World, Ancient Rome, Dacia, Thrace. While the location of this settlement is in modern Bulgaria, removing all references to the ancient history categories and the replacement with solely modern Bulgaria related categories, is very detrimental to the article. This effectively prevents users and especially editors to easily find this article, now buried in too many levels of categories and, all it does shows a subjective nationalistic Bulgarian sentiment. This city was built long before Bulgaria existed and deserves categories that show that. I think there is clearly room for both Bulgaria-related and ancient world categories, even if some of them connect 5 or 10 levels deep to the same parent. They can serve at least as "tags" that clarify the identity of this city in a fuzzy Balkans history, full of invasions and change of ownerships. Varied categories should be present at least, until the article is fully developed by interested parties, although I think they will be still useful after.
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Aedava
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aedava[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]
Invoking the overcategorization advice in Wikipedia:Categorization stands for some of categories, but not for the majority, and not in the case of a new article which needs more exposure and editors.
The goal of this article was to present an ancient Dacian town, later known to the Romans, potentially used by the. From the beginning, the article clearly mentioned the location in modern Bulgaria. The intention of the existing categories and stubs was to bring interested users and especially editors to participate constructively. The article is intended to be added to portals/projects on Ancient World, Ancient Rome, Dacia, Thrace. While the location of this settlement is in modern Bulgaria, removing all references to the ancient history categories and the replacement with solely modern Bulgaria related categories, is very detrimental to the article. This effectively prevents users and especially editors to easily find this article, now buried in too many levels of categories and, all it does shows a subjective nationalistic Bulgarian sentiment. This city was built long before Bulgaria existed and deserves categories that show that. I think there is clearly room for both Bulgaria-related and ancient world categories, even if some of them connect 5 levels deep to the same parent. They can serve at least as "tags" that clarify the identity of this city in a fuzzy Balkans history, full of invasions and change of ownerships. Varied categories should be present at least, until the article is fully developed by interested parties, although I think they will be still useful after. The Dacian history is a integral part of the Romanian history and having the ((Romania-hist-stub)) is simply noting that. It is not a territorial claim or nationalistic propaganda. The article should also be marked as a stub part of Bulgarian history if needed. It is only fair. There are many regions of this world included in the history of multiple nations, as we didn't live in isolation from each other (especially in the Balkans). The whole idea is to invite editors to participate in the creation of it, with objective facts. The ideas of some Bulgarian historians that Dacians have nothing to do with Romanians nor that they are connected with the Thracians, out of shear nationalism or in order to present a more convenient version of Bulgarian history (removing the very inconvenient Daco-Thracian connection and Daco-Romanian continuity from the picture) should have no bearing on these kinds of articles, since it is highly subjective and detrimental.
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Blue Army (Poland)
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Blue Army (Poland)[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]
I tried to use the discussion page and it comes up with a solicitation to expand the article for France, Poland and Military topics. Hallersarmy (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Faustian changed both title and content in a section I wrote. By doing so, the original meaning was totally changed, to suit the needs of Faustian. He promptly filled his new material with references which had nothing to do with the meaning of the original article section. He should have started a new section if he felt it was needed and leave the original section to stand on its own. Faustian concludes one of the references he used turned out to be flawed in a different article, so why use it again? His lengthy footnotes appear to be a simple way to work in his point of view into the original article page without being located within the body of the text. In the body, they would not likely be accepted, but down at a footnote, they get in. Looking at various other articles, this use of very lengthy footnoting is not seen regularly. Faustian also edits the lengthy footnotes to serve his own view, not for historical accuracy. Hallersarmy (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Faustian is once again in error. My original section on Jews in Haller's Army included a reference to an article written by Ed Goldstein and published in the Gesher Galician Newsletter, 2002, a reputable Jewish Genealogical and Historical journal. Check the history of the page. NOWHERE, did I list it as a webpage article. Faustian added the web page information, I did not. I understand that webpages may not be as reliable as published printed works, therefore I went to the original printed version in a Jewish publication rather than the same article on a webpage. Though some webpages are more accurate than published works. That is what we have to determine. Hallersarmy (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Alexander Graham Bell
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alexander Graham Bell[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning WABC (AM)
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
WABC (AM)[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Electronic body music
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Electronic body music[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Flash mob
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Flash mob[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
I've also notified Ckatz (talk · contribs) about this.
Issues to be mediated[edit]
The article Flash mob receives a lot of spam. These usually include examples of publicity stunts that do not fit the definition of flash mobs, or non-notable flash mobs that happen like at a university where a bunch of students did one. Literally hundreds of flash mobs occur each year.
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Time travel
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Time travel[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Prem Rawat
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Prem Rawat 5[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Genesis Creation Narrative
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Genesis creation narrative[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Attempted discussion and page protection on both Issues to be mediated[edit]
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Block[edit]Gniniv is currently blocked for disruptive editing and edit-warring. The block will expire on the 15th of July. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bovineboy2008#Reliable_Sources Issues to be mediated[edit]
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning United States Casualties of War
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
United States Casualties of War[edit]
Dispute specifics[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
|