Rejected request for mediation concerning Bulgaria
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bulgaria[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page.
The Info box Formation section of Bulgaria article, which was in effect since 2006 was changed, with the date 681 eliminated from it. 2006 version:
2012 version:
The users Ceco31,Gligan, Apcbg, ximhua & V3n0M93 disagreed with the removal of the date 681 from the Info box and expressed their opinion on the talk page: Talk:Bulgaria. A number of sources stating that Bulgaria beings in 681 were was listed, as follows:
The opposing side rejected the proposed compromise.
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Your comment to me includes, the following: "About this [2]: I honestly don't care what the formal rules are in that place.... Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)" It is good to know you don't care about rules. Luckily most wikipedian's do. I have a suggestion however, let's just have the mediators do their work?(Ximhua (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC))
Dear Mediation Committee, how can I facilitate this further so you can start reviewing this case? I'm not interested in petty accusations, but in moving this forward and reaching a compromise and final solution. Please, kindly assist. (Ximhua (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)) Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
Filing party: Please re-write the primary issues so that their meaning is clear. Your summary of the issues of this dispute is too long, and not easily readable. Thank you. AGK [•] 23:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Update applied, please let me know if anything else is needed. Ximhua (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Very disappointed... will start an RFC Ximhua (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC) |
Rejected request for mediation concerning Geocode
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Geocode[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page.
On 17 June 2012 Closeapple (talk · contribs) began a review of the Geocode article to determine if it should be recommended for deletion. In his review he stated “No evidence given of WP:GNG (or any references at all) after 5 years for this (allegedly brand-name) product.” He supports his call for a review by stating that this debate is also being discussed in the list of Software-related deletion discussions and the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. No references can be found in these discussions regarding the debate as to the Geocode article. On 25 June 2012 Colapeninsula (talk · contribs) recommended redirecting the article to Geocoding because “Can't find any sources to indicate notability”. On 1 July 2012 Sussexonian (talk · contribs) noted that “Template:Infobox settlement contains an optional field Geocode and the usage note for the field says "See Geocode." There are settlements in several countries with that field completed but clearly the data are not related to the specific proprietary Geocode covered in the article, unless the product is WP:MADEUP and the inventor just added the numbers.” On 1 July 2012 The Bushranger (talk · contribs) redirected Geocode to Geocoding. On 22 July 2012 New Media (talk · contribs) requested undeletion of the Geocode article. On 22 July 2012 Orange Mike (talk · contribs) replied to the request for undeletion. It was “not done”. The reasoning he provided is that “The article "Life" does not get hogged by the magazine, or the cereal, or the games.” However, the article “Life” has this reference – “For other uses, see Life (disambiguation).” On the Life (disambiguation) article there is an entry “Life (cereal), a cereal distributed by the Quaker Oats Company”, which redirects to a separate article on the cereal “Life”. Therefore, the justification used by Orange Mike does not support his position that there cannot be a separate article on the Geocode. On 22 July 2012 JohnCD (talk · contribs) made a note on the request for undeletion. On 24 July 2012 New Media (talk · contribs) provided a declared COI and also provided detailed comments with online references to the cited material on JohnCD (talk · contribs). He also requested reestablishment of the Geocode article. On 24 July 2012 JohnCD (talk · contribs) posted a note on The Bushranger (talk · contribs) to request that he review this issue as the editor who redirected the Geocode article. (JohnCD’s note on The Bushranger (talk · contribs) page has since been removed.) 24 July 2012 The Bushranger (talk · contribs) made a note on New Media (talk · contribs) stating “I'm willing to restore the page to your userspace for you to work on and improve it, addressing the issues that caused the page to be deleted so that it might be able to be restored to articlespace,” On 25 July 2012 New Media (talk · contribs) responded to The Bushranger requesting undeletion of the Geocode article or listing the Geocode as part of the “List of geocoding systems” on the Geocoding page. As of 29 July 2012 no further discussion has occurred on issue of restoration of the Geocode article. The Geocode article remains being redirected to the Geocoding article.
Geocode, a patented system for representing the geospatial attributes of an entity or objects location, should be listed on the Geocoding page under ““List of geocoding systems”. It should also be listed with a link to a separate Geocode article like the Life cereal. If there is further explanation required on the Geocoding article then a Geocoding (disambiguation) article should be created. The Geocoding (disambiguation) article should be linked to a Geocode article with the historical Geocode information and a Geocode (disambiguation) that links to whatever usages there are of the term Geocode. This would enable the same type of referencing used for many usages of the term “Life”.
New Media (talk · contribs) has a declared COI and requests to not create or edit articles relating to Geocode or Geocoding content.
The article on the 'proprietary system' called GEOCODE contained no references to verify its existence or notability, not even the name of the developer, home webpage link or anything other than patent numbers. There are no examples of what the code actually is, and given the unimaginative name there may be more than one commercial product by this name. Sussexonian (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I did not see the reply requesting undeletion (which is on User talk:Cmburn, as it happens, that account not yet being renamed to New Media); however looking it over the 'additional sources' provided are a U.S. copyright, two U.S. patents, and a U.S. trademark - none of which supply any notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. |
Rejected request for mediation concerning Austrian School
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Austrian School[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on case talk page.
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. |
Rejected request for mediation concerning Patricia Caicedo
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Patricia Caicedo[edit]
WP:COI. The primary editor is User:Singerpat, who is obviously the subject of the article (in an edit summary, she said, "Author, Patricia Caicedo. This picture is used in my own website www.patriciacaicedo.com"). The article is also nearly completely unreferenced. ShadowHalo 08:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Delete - unreferenced autobiography. MER-C 08:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Delete Per nom. Davidpdx 10:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Issues to be mediated[edit]All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on case talk page.
I own the copyright of all my album covers as well as my own pictures. You can visit my site at www.patriciacaicedo.com
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Rangers F.C.
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rangers F.C.[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page.
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Please do not use special formatting (like multi-column lists) or give us excessively detailed summaries of the parties involved. Mediation is not suitable for huge groups of disputants, and in any case I doubt a hundred and sixty-nine people are arguing about this article. At this point, we require Andrew (the filing party) to do a few things:
Also, the Mediation Committee's bot account usually automatically notifies the listed parties to the dispute that the request has been opened. Until the above four issues are resolved to the Mediation Committee's satisfaction, we have directed the bot to hold all notifications. To ensure the listed parties are not notified without our all-clear, please do not remove the
Thank you very much for your patience and co-operation. AGK [•] 23:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure what's sensitive about this. The factual reality is that there has been a clear hijacking of the Rangers FC 1872 page by Rangers FC 1872 fans to construct a wikipedia page based on what they want to print rather than printing clear definitions. The club is currently in liquidation. There is a clear distinction between Rangers FC 1872 and THE Rangers FC who were formed in 2012 by Charles Green's consortium using assets of the oldco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC) |
Rejected request for mediation concerning Northeast United States
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Northeast United States[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on case talk page.
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. |
Rejected request for mediation concerning CBS Records
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBS Records[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on case talk page.
May I note that this is not a random talk page or an IRC session. If the request for mediation will be accepted, all of this would be discussed properly and in more detail, so please, keep the request page quite to avoid tl;dr. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The CBS Records default DAB page is doing its job as proven by [5]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to the CBS Records DAB page, the misdirected links in articles are now all corrected. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. |
Rejected request for mediation concerning MalachiMartin
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Malachi Martin[edit]
Posted a request for editorial assistance on Dispute resolution noticeboard but they suggested we engage in talk which has led to an undo content contest. Issues to be mediated[edit]All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on case talk page.
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Golden Dawn (Greece)
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Golden Dawn (Greece)[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on case talk page.
Examples: Nazi Party, National Party (South Africa), neither of which have "racism" in their infoboxes. The other valid ideological tags in the infobox make Golden Dawns ideological leanings clear. Accusations of racism and evidence of racism are not the same as having racism as an ideology in the infobox. If it was, both the Nazi Party and the National Party would have it in their infoboxes. Also, none of the sources that are being used for "racism as a political ideology" for Golden Dawn actually state that the party adheres to racism as a form of political ideology. Thus it appears that it is synthesis WP:Synthesis.
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. |
Rejected request for mediation concerning Sport in Australia
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sport in Australia[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on case talk page.
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. |
Rejected request for mediation concerning Cinco de Mayo
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cinco de Mayo[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on case talk page.
On May 5 1862 a battle took place between Mexican and Napoleon's French forces in Puebla, Mexico, called the Battle of Puebla. The mexican defeated a well trained and well equipped French army, this point is historical and unchallenged. The dispute here lays in the actual number of soldiers involved. Each and all sources giving different accounts on that particular point :
Official Mexican source :
French sources :
Legitimate sources (above : both French and Mexican) are discarded by Mercy11 as "not reliable sources to begin with", reverting my edits in whatever form I put them (see revert Cinco de Mayo and revert Battle of Puebla), imposing the History Channel as the sole trustable source on the matter and lecturing me about WP rules. I believe we owe to the reader all numbers and their sources. Thank you. - Wikigi | talk to me | 16:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Mexican-American War
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mexican-American War[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on case talk page.
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Intercontinental Cup (football)
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intercontinental Cup (football)[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on case talk page.
Though an official competition at two-continental level (UEFA-Europe and Conmebol- South American) , the Intercontinental Cup has never been a official competition at world level (since it is not a FIFA-official competition, as FIFA is the sole official soccer authority at world level). And FIFA has made clear that the first official Club World Champion was Corinthians in 2000, stating that Intercontinental Club competitions in years gone by (including then the Intercontinental Cup, since it was created in 1960, and 1960 is a "year gone by" relative to 2000) were not official FIFA events. (http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/news/newsid=660747/index.html FIFA admits officially, in its official documents ((http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/index.html , http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/doclists/matches.html) that the Intercontinental Cup was a predecessor to the FIFA Club World Cup, but rational logic says that not necessarily a predecessor to a specific something is the same worth of that specific something; what is more, FIFA has never made any official statement equalising the worth of the Intercontinental Cup (henceforth called IC) and the worth of the FIFA Club World Cup (henceforth called CWC) as being equal worth ((http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompcwc/01/15/71/66/fcwc2012_kit.pdf). As far as non-official statements are concerned, FIFA has on its web-site many texts (which are NOT listed on the FIFA site as being FIFA official documents: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/index.html , http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/doclists/matches.html), on which FIFA says that the IC was a world title; however, even on this non-official texts, FIFA is very dubious, often referring to the IC as a world title that was "symbolic", "not the true one" ((http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=107/edition=4735/news/newsid=95645.html). Examples of these texts: in a July 28th 2005 text (about the 2005 FIFA Club World Cup) called "Japan welcomes the world with open arms" on its web-site, FIFA writes "Brought up watching the annual Europe-South America clash, Japanese fans are counting the days to the kick off of the TRUE world club showdown", therefore FIFA makes clear the difference between "Europe-South America clash" (referring to the IC) and "the TRUE world club showdown" (refering to the FIFA Club World Cup). also in a July 28th 2005 text (about the 2005 FIFA Club World Cup) called "Continental champions prepare for Tokyo draw" on its web-site, FIFA writes "the Toyota Cup, which superseded the Intercontinental Cup in 1980, has been revamped by FIFA to reach out to all confederations and associations across the globe so the winners may TRULY be regarded as the best club side in the world", therefore FIFA makes clear that only the FIFA Club World Cup TRULY indicates the world club champion. (http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=107/edition=4735/news/newsid=99485.html) And it must be pointed out that these texts are produced by FIFA's news centre (http://www.fifa.com/newscentre/index.html), which produces texts about a variety of subjects (footballers, coaches, etc), NOT being listed as official FIFA documents (http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/index.html , http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/doclists/matches.html), all this making clear that such texts are NOT the official FIFA views. Following logic: 1- FIFA is the sole soccer official authority at world level; 2- FIFA has never officialised the IC as a World-value title (note: FIFA officially declares the IC as "a predecessor to the FIFA CWC", but has never officially declared that both have the same value); 3- even on its non-official texts, FIFA is dubious about the "world value" of the IC , always calling it "symbolic", "not the true one", and etc; 4- therefore, the supposed "world value" of the IC is not a FIFA officially enforced fact; 5- not being an officially enforced fact by the sole official authority at the matter (FIFA), the "world value" of the IC is consequently a matter of personal opinion; 6- as a matter of personal opinion, the "world value" of the IC must not be stated in the article, or at least it must be stated in the article with the due explanations that it is a matter of opinion, but not an undisputed fact. The problem is that Mr Dante the Peruvian has taken control over the article in order to enforce his personal view that the Intercontinental Cup is a "world value" cup. According to Mr Dante: 1- Mr Dante said: "the IC had the value of World Title even without FIFA-officialisation because FIFA was statutely prohibited from getting involved in Club competitions". MY ANSWER: in the Discussion Page, I have presented many links from the archive of Barcelona sport Newspaper El Mundo Deportivo showing that as early as 1962 FIFA has tried to regulate the IC. Mr Dante dismissed them. 2- Mr Dante said: “Intercontinental Cup does not need FIFA officialization because it was made by UEFA and CONMEBOL, and at least one of them (Conmebol) sees it as official and sees it as a world title”. MY ANSWER: it happens that Conmebol does NOT have jurisdiction over football at WORLD level, only at South American level,as UEFA does NOT have jurisdiction over football at world level, only at European level, so they are not legitimate to consecrate anything at World Level. If I agreed with Mr Dante’s argumentation, I might for instance say that the Rio Cup 1951-1952 is a world title even without FIFA officialisation “because it was official for the Brazilian FA and the Brazilian FA saw it as a world title”; or, for another instance, I might for instance say that the Pequeña Copa del Mundo 1952-1957 is a world title even without FIFA officialisation “because it was official for the Venezuelan FA and the Venezuelan FA saw it as a world title”. This proves how stupid are Mr Dantes’s argumentations. Clearly, institutions as UEFA and COnmebol do not have football jurisdiction at world level - ONLY FIFA HAS IT. 3- Mr Dante said: "FIFA was unable to create a Club World Cup until 2000, and during this period the IC was the highest soccer club tournament in the world, therefore the IC had the value of a World Club title". MY ANSWER: This is an absurd argumentation by Mr Dante. With this same rationale, the English FA Cup should also be treated as a World Club Title, because when it was created, football only existed in Britain and therefore the English FA Cup consequently was back then the "the highest soccer club tournament in the world". 4- Mr Dante said: "Because by then the only national associations affiliated to FIFA that had direct fit to the FIFA World Cup were South American and European teams while the rest of the semiprofessional teams of the other FIFA members had to play an elimination phase against a third European or South American team or between themselves. In addition, in 1960 the only confederations competitions were the European Champions' Cup and the Copa Libertadores." MY ANSWER: According to this rationale of Mr Dante, the European Champions Cups 1955/1956, 1956/1957, 1957/1958 and 1958/1959 should also be considered to have the worth of a "world title", as it was the sole continental club competition in these years.... according to this rationale, the English FA Cup should be considered to have the value of a Club World Cup because, when it was created, soccer did not exist outside England... What is more: if the Intercontinental Cup was the same value of a Club World Cup BECAUSE in 1960 the only confederations with competitions were Europe and South America, as Dante says, therefore the very same rationale would say that the Intercontinental Cup should STOP being considered a Club-World-value cup once the other continents (Africa, Asia, Concacaf) created their continental competitions in the 1960's. Sure, the chances of Africans/Asians/"Concacafians"/"Oceanians" to reach to the FIFA World Cup were restricted in comparison to those of Europeans and South Americans. Anyway, small and restricted as the chances were, the fact is that Africans/Asians/"Concacafians"/"Oceanians" ALWAYS HAD A CHANCE to reach the FIFA World Cup, while they NEVER HAD ANY CHANCE to reach the Intercontinental Cup. And they NEVER had such chance EVEN when they beat the South Americans on the pitch (Interamerican Cups 1977 and 1980 and Libertadores 2001). In April 1978, Mexican club America beat Boca Juniors for Interamerican Cup and, based on that fact, America requested to participate in the Intercontinental Cup, and was denied by Conmebol, because America was a Mexican club not a South American club - this shows that the purpose of the IC was to indicate the best of Europe+South America, not the best of the world. And before the 2001 Libertadores Cup final between Mexican club Cruz Azul and Argentinian club Boca Juniors, Conmebol announced that Cruz Azul would NOT be allowed to play the Intercontinental Cup even if they beat Boca Juniors in the Libertadores Final. In his statement in the Discussion page, Mr Dante "decided" (from whichever "authority" he may think he has...) that the Interamerican Cup was "neglectable" and "meant nothing"- but please notice that, not only through Interamerican Cup but also through Libertadores Cup (Libertadores Cup: the very same foundation of the creation of the Intercontinental Cup), the Mexicans would not be allowed to play the Intercontinental Cup even if they beat the South Americans on the picth. The reason: the Intercontinental Cup was a European/South American title, NOT a world title. 5 - Mr Dante said: "it is clear without need to discussion that the IC was WORLDWIDE regarded as a World Title". Also, Mr Dante cited that the BBC also proved his views. MY ANSWER: I brought (to the Discussion Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intercontinental_Cup_(football)#The_Intercontinental_Cup_is_NOT_official_as_a_world_club_cup) TONS of worldwide respctable and reliable sources (UEFA, CONMEBOL, Toyota, Japanese Football Association, newspapers from Mexico, Spain, Korea, Costa Rica, clubs such as Corinthians, Internacional Porto Alegre, Barcelona) that do NOT refer to the IC as having "world-value". As Mr Dante claimed BBC as a reliable source, I also showed BBC's Tim Vickery articles posted on both BBC and UEFA sites , stating clearly: 1- the South Americans saw the IC much more seriously and importantly that the Europeans saw it; 2 - to the Europeans, the IC was (from the 1980's on) a "glorified exhibition match to show football to the Japanese" and "a glorified friendly"; 3- the Europeans take the FIFA CWC more seriously than they took the IC. Point 3 belies clearly Mr Dante's statement that the IC and the CWC have the same value and status. Funny, when I showed this, Mr Dante dismissed these sources as being "blogs", not taking into account that these sources (BBC and UEFA) were called upon by him himself. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/timvickery/2008/12/one_of_my_regrets_is.html ; http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/timvickery/2010/12/post.html ; http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/eusa/news/kind=1/newsid=276659.html ; (http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/eusa/news/kind=1/newsid=276659.html 6- Beyond insisting on trying to equalise the importance and value of the IC to those of the official club world title (the FIFA FWC), Mr Dante also said that the IC was "the most important tournament at international level in which any club could participate". My ANSWER: UEFA itself regards the UEFA Champions Cup as the most important club trophy in the world (just to remember: UEFA was a source once called upon by Mr Dante Himself and UEFA was the creator and one of the promoters of the Intercontinental Cup): http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/index.html The 1970's record of the IC also shows clearly that it was not that important for Germans, Dutchmen and Englishmen. In the 1970's, the European Champions (in this decade, they were invariably German, Dutch or English) declined the IC no fewer than 7 AMONG 10 YEARS. Definitely, the IC was not so importantly seen as Mr Dante believes.
ALL PRESENTED, I humbly and respectfully request that the statement "The competition was considered until the creation of its successor, the FIFA Club World Cup,the most important tournament at international level in which any club could participate, for that reason all the winner teams were recognised de facto as world club champions" be erased from the Intercontinental Cup article, for it represents a personal view of Mr Dante (not only his, it is true, of many people, but even so a personal opinion on which many people disagree) , being neither an officially enforced fact nor a worlwide consensual opinion.
PS: it is not the central theme of my mediation request, but Mr Dante also insists that the Lipton , Pequeña Copa del Mundo , Rio and Intercontinental Cups were all of them created with the purpose of being "club world competitions", but he presents no source to that affirmation. Also on the Discussion page of the Intercontinental Cup article, there are information showing that the Pequeña Copa del Mundo had an impact commensurate to that of "club world cup" NOWHERE - neither in Venezuela (host country) nor in Brazil and Spain (whose clubs won 5 out of the 6 editions of the original series of this competition). My turn: This "controversy" is not for officiality of the competition called Intercontinental Cup, but is for the value of the title "world champion club" traditionally assigned to the winning team of the tournament from 1960 to 2004. To clarify this, note that: 1. The Intercontinental Cup was an official tournament being organised by UEFA and CONMEBOL and included in the club/head coach/footballer sporting record (cf. e.g. UEFA club competition, p. 101). Not being organised by FIFA, that governing body has no legal authority to "formalize", "ignore", "reform" or "delete" this contest. 2) In 1960, FIFA reject organise the Intercontinental Cup—as happened in 1955 with the European Champions' Cup—due then-current article 38 of its own statute whereby allowed it to organise only tournaments between "representative teams of national associations", ie among its own members (cf. 50 years of the European Cup, p.7). It is false, therefore, to say that FIFA reject organise it "to oppose the competition". 3) Having been jointly organised by UEFA and CONMEBOL (ie is an UEFA and CONMEBOL club competition), FIFA was—and continues to be—banned from interfering in the tournament due the principle of sovereignty according to art. 20 of FIFA statutes (cf. FIFA statutes (2012), p. 17; UEFA and CONMEBOL statutes) 4) When Manchester United won the Intercontinental Cup in 1999 and was proclamed as "world club champion" FIFA never issued a statement rejected that achievement in favor of the Club World Cup pilot edition (contest two months later) although this was a symbolic title conferred de facto because was not formally assigned by the Intercontinental Cup committee as both UEFA and CONMEBOL are continental bodies (while the title assigned to FIFA club competition winner is confered de jure). 5) According FIFA:
That citation, and this list redacted by FIFA, clearly reveals that the world's governing body recognises the symbolic title of "club world champion" assigned de facto to all the Intercontinental Cup winners from 1960 to 2004 despite the tournament was formally an UEFA/CONMEBOL club competition regardless of level of football played in the Eastern South America and Western Europe is more developed compared to the other continents, so it is encyclopaedically valid describe the Intercontinental Cup winner as "world champion".--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Italianization
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Italianization[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Lie To Me (Jonny Lang)
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lie to Me (album)[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on Wikipedia Article: Lie to Me(album) [[case talk page:
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Though the Chairman of the committee or his delegate will decide whether or not to accept this case, one of the prerequisites for mediation is that dispute resolution through third opinion, request for comment or dispute resolution noticeboard be tried first. By looking through the contribution histories of both editors, I can find no such attempt. Would the filing editor please identify, in the "Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted" section above, where such prior dispute resolution has been attempted? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Jerusalem
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jerusalem[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]The article presently states in the first sentence of the lead that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such (...)". The issue is whether this complies with neutrality, taking into account that there are a large number of sources that present the notion that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" as just a claim. An example of such a source is here: "While Israel calls Jerusalem its "eternal and indivisible" capital, few other states accept that status". In the UN General Assembly, most of the world's states have subscribed to resolutions describing Israel's attempts to make it its capital as "null and void". It has been proposed that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" would be edited along the lines of e.g.
I would like to point out that the opening sentence as a whole was the reason for the dispute, namely Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such This sentence was already balanced, although I do not believe that the lack of international recognition, which is mentioned again in the text should go in the lead also. Many RS do not point this out [14], CIA factbook [15] Country Watch [16] Maps of World, even official US documents (State Department documents) [17] academic papers [18] or [19] So the dispute was not based just on the first part of the sentence, but on the whole sentence. The main question was if the current wording though not internationally recognized as such was already balanced. In my opinion the current wording, due to the abstract and absolute meaning of the generalized term "international community" could be seen as POV against Israel. I pointed out that any eventual change from this at least already balanced version would lead to further changes. Namely the seize of Jerusalem, its neighborhoods, are all determined by same Israeli Jerusalem law (through which Jerusalem was declared united capital of Israel in 1980) If we go back to the legal status of Jerusalem during British mandatory Palestine 1917-1948 (as Jerusalem was under Jordanian occupation from 1948-1967) we would have to downsize Jerusalem to less than 30% of its current territory and population. In this case it would be necessary, as we can not just pick out what we like and leave inside what we do not like. So to summarize the question is if the wording Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such is already balanced for the lead--Tritomex (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Indigenous peoples
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Indigenous peoples[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on case talk page.
Crock81 has been adding unsourced content, one paragraph with respect to I've specifically addressed to him directly on the Indigenous peoples Talk page under his "Clean-up notice" section. This dispute arises on the tail end of an ongoing dispute on the List of indigenous peoples page (see the Talk page, in particular), and it appears to me that Crock81 has decided to turn his attention to the Indigenous peoples article in the hope of meeting less resistance, perhaps. He has stated explicitly under the aforementioned "Clean-up notice" that he intends to edit in a manner such as to emphasize a POV that peoples other than "discriminated peoples" are also defined as indigenous peoples. On the List of indigenous peoples article, the dispute related to the contentious status of indigeneity of Palestinians and Jews/Israelis/Israelites. In relation to that, the following comment by Crock81 on the corresponding Talk page is somewhat indicative of his POV disposition.
Please refer to the discussion on EdJohnston's Talk page for other details, as that will save the need to repeat everything here. NOTE - It seems to me that an Issue 1' ought to deal with a single issue, and conflating the editing of a paragraph on the article Indigenous peoples, SUBJECT OF THIS MEDIATION REQUEST, with that of the List of indigenous peoples is not helpful. I will only address one issue at a time. Response - This is not an issue. I had requested Ubikwit address the specific problems of the selected paragraph in the Indigenous peoples in the talk page set out in point fashion, namely:
This was initially met with silence.
The most recent aspect of his prolific number of edits over the past 24 hours or so that I've noticed is that he re-ordered the list of international organizations related to indigenous peoples in a manner he describes as "chronological". Aside from the fact that it is not clear on what sources he is basing the purported chronology, it would seem that chronology would not have priority over current importance in terms of the role played by each organization in advocating for the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. Obviously the United Nations is the preeminent organization in the world acting in that capacity, and he moved the UN to the bottom of the list.
Crock81 would appear not to be a native speaker of English, and though I have stated this on EdJohnston's Talk page, I think it is worth briefly repeating here, that in order to prevent language proficiency from further impacting content related issues, Crock81 should be advised to have reliable sources prepared in advance to support any edits. It also would be helpful if he were told to propose in advance on the Talk page such a major restructuring like re-ordering the list of international organizations in a manner such as to place the preeminent organization at the bottom of the list. Response - There is no requirement by the English Wikipedia editors to be native English users. However, WP:RS is unrelated to WP:STYLE. Ubikwit was invited to identify problems with my English usage (see above) but chose not to do so. An alternative would have been to call on someone neutral to comment on the talk page without recourse to mediation. There are a large number of wikipedians that do just that without even prompting. Reverting editing is not IMHO a solution to supposedly bad grammar within the scope of the existing process I don't consider change of text order in one section of the article to be "major restructuring". Major restructuring would be if I proposed that the Abolitionism be moved as a subsection within History, and distributed within the various existing sections to reflect different cultural and historic attitudes to slavery because it changes how the article reads (keeping the Wikipedia user in mind). Changing several blocks of text within the same section is not going to change the reader's perception, but will offer a better perception of change over time in legal impacts on indigenous causes.
Ubikwit appears to have a problem with using the talk page. He/she thinks its a place to bully editors through threats of edit wars and making empty claims. It wastes my time, and others. This is my second experince with such behaviour by Ubikwit, but I tried to stay out of the earlier edit war which resulted in this Ubikwit enjoys dispute participation, and invents these as it seems to serve his/her self-esteem to be noticed. I have no interest in participating in this process. There is no dispute
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. |
Rejected request for mediation concerning AR-15
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AR-15[edit]
Discussion in Talk page seems to have been stifled. Issues to be mediated[edit]All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on case talk page.
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. I am a member of the Mediation Committee and have a few questions and requests:
Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Turkish people
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Turkish people[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on case talk page.
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Jerusalem 2
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jerusalem 2[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]A recent ArbCom motion requesting a binding community discussion regarding the intro to Jerusalem. It is proposed that mediation could support the formulation of an RfC question. There are a number of emerging differences of opinion as to how the question should be phrased (see article talkpage). I've listed editors currently active on the talkpage as parties. Other editors with a historic involvement should feel free to add themselves. NOTE: A recent request for mediation was declined because a small number of parties did not respond. Given that this new request in pursuant to an ArbCom motion, it is proposed that ArbCom should be consulted before the request is declined, although the motion does not make any reference to meditation.
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. In light of the comments of the "Support" voting Arbitrators at the Arbitration Committee (the complete record of which is archived here) and the content of the adopted motion:it seems pretty clear to me that this case is not within the purview or jurisdiction of the Mediation Committee. This request ought to be quickly and summarily refused for that reason, so that it may move forward in a proper venue without uncertainty about whether we will do it or not. I recommend refusal. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Supplement: I failed to specifically address the use of mediation to formulate the RFC question. I believe that question to be part of what the three closers (to be appointed by the Arbitration Committee (?)) are to work upon. (Even if it is not, then it would be premature to raise it here. There has not been sufficient talk page discussion or prior dispute resolution on that question.) If the parties to the dispute cannot come to an agreement on that issue, my suggestion to the parties would be to make a new motion to ArbCom to either define the question itself or to appoint the three closers to do so. — TM 16:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Rejected request for mediation concerning Ghost in the Shell
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ghost in the Shell[edit]
Issues to be mediated[edit]All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on case talk page.
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
|