→CR Paganism Mediation: response |
CorbieVreccan (talk | contribs) →CR Paganism Mediation: PS it's already in arbitration |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
:I look at it from this perspective: a user requested the assistance of MedCab to try and work out a dispute he is having with many users. This is the first MedCab case I have mediated where the respondents chose not to participate, but respond by criticizing the requester. If all of you had responded by saying you were not interested, case closed. I think there is an obvious dispute going on here and possibly talking out the concerns in a mediation may help cool the fire. The first step is to see if anyone is interested in discussing the matter. [[User:Alan.ca|Alan.ca]] 04:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC) |
:I look at it from this perspective: a user requested the assistance of MedCab to try and work out a dispute he is having with many users. This is the first MedCab case I have mediated where the respondents chose not to participate, but respond by criticizing the requester. If all of you had responded by saying you were not interested, case closed. I think there is an obvious dispute going on here and possibly talking out the concerns in a mediation may help cool the fire. The first step is to see if anyone is interested in discussing the matter. [[User:Alan.ca|Alan.ca]] 04:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Hi Alan, I think what's troubling me is that it seems to me that you are assuming that our frustration with Jefferson Anderson is unwarranted. It also seems to me that you are assuming that continued dialogue with him will make us less frustrated with his behaviour. AFAIK, None of us named in his request believe he has ever made any sort of attempt to resolve any sort of dispute with us. He promptly filed the mediation when he didn't like the results of the RfC, posting on my talk page that he would "happily take this to official mediation and arbitration if necessary."([https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKathryn_NicDh%C3%A0na&diff=98531140&oldid=98531028 diff]) His statement, summation and request completely misrepresented the situation and contained insults. While perhaps a polite, "no thanks" would have been more appropriate, and I do somewhat regret not keeping it that simple, I think it is human that we responded with a certain degree of frustration and irritability. <font face="Georgia">[[User:Kathryn NicDhàna|<span style="color:navy"> ~ Kathryn NicDhàna</span>]] [[User_talk:Kathryn NicDhàna|♫]]<font color="navy">♦</font>[[Special:Contributions/Kathryn_NicDhàna|♫]]</font> 06:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::PS - In case it's not clear, Jefferson's treatment of other Wikipedians is currently one of the subjects in the Starwood arbitration. It's already progressed beyond Mediation. <font face="Georgia">[[User:Kathryn NicDhàna|<span style="color:navy"> ~ Kathryn NicDhàna</span>]] [[User_talk:Kathryn NicDhàna|♫]]<font color="navy">♦</font>[[Special:Contributions/Kathryn_NicDhàna|♫]]</font> 06:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:19, 14 January 2007
Alan.ca (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)
Deletion Discussions
User talk:Alan.ca/DeletionDiscuss
My Block Discussion
Inclusion of newspaper stories
Yes Sorry the Holiday interfeared with everything I do. Now that it is all on track again I will be able to help you more readily. Have there been any new things that have happened with you? Æon Insanity Now!EA! 03:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone else came to the article and included a bunch of well sourced facts. This new person and CJCurrie are still opposed to the inclusion of the fact I found about the vote. Alan.ca 04:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you give me the User name of that member? Æon Insanity Now!EA! 19:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- It was user:Bucketsofg who was the editor who included all of the sourced facts. Alan.ca 19:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I have talked with Bucketsofg and his reply was that it was a very minor fact that you were trying to include.
Here is what he posted on my talk page
Hi Aeon, thank-you for your message on my page. For future reference, you might encourage someone who finds something I do problematic or obscure to get in touch with me, since I don't think there is any need for advocacy here. I did, I admit, do a "drive-by" sourcing for Judy Marsales, a Member of the Provincial Parliament (MPP) for Hamilton, Ontario. This sourcing can be seen more or less in this diff. I also left my opinion on the talk page about whether or not the article should include a reference to Marsales vote against a private member's bill about property taxes on the basis of on article. (You can see the description of the proposal in the last line of Tim Hudak.) In our system, private members' bills have no chance of passing, especially on matters of taxation. Voting for or against it is hardly news-worthy, much less wikipedia-worthy, and as far as I can see the bill only merits a single-line in its proposer's biography and reaction to it is found in no other MPP's article. It's clearly doesn't belong, and you should ask Alan to go find some other similar reference to a private member's votes in any other Canadian politicians' biographies. I think if he finds one in another such article, he'll see how out-of-place they seem. But most of all, I think you should encourage Alan not to resort to your advocacy until he's attempted a good one-on-one exchange with another editor. Bucketsofg 16:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
If this is a minor fact then I would have to agree that it really doesn't need to be in the article and that you should try a one on one exchange (if you have not done so allready). Æon Insanity Now!EA! 20:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have attempted a one on one exchange. They believe the fact that she voted against a bill to cap property taxes is irrelevant. I believe otherwise. As I have stated to both of them, I am open to discussion on the wording of the inclusion, but I think the fact is relevant and it was covered by a well respected news source. Alan.ca 05:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Did it effect just one small area (and conversly covered by one local paper or news station) or was it a national issues that got covered alot? Æon Insanity Now!EA! 07:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The Bill would have affected the province of Ontario. This news article was about the reaction from some of Judy's constituents on her vote on the bill. I think it is especially relevant because Judy is a former real estate agent and a vote on property taxes would seem to be close to her prior career. Alan.ca 09:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Did it get National coverage and multible media sources? Æon Insanity Now!EA! 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe Judy Marsales has received national coverage on anything she has done. She is a provincial, back bencher, MPP. If you read what is in her article, they are single source items. In fact, 13/15 cited sources in the article are from the Hamilton Spectator, the source of my fact. Alan.ca 15:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, forgive me for saying this, but it really doesn't seem that well, relevant to anything other then her location and area she is responsible for. If I (not being from that area or country) looked her up for some reason I would really not be interested in an individual vote (and nor would most people doing that kind of reasearch). While it is great that you want to make the article the most precise it could be, a admittedly very minor fact would not really add to the article in question. I would have to agree that it really doesn't warrant inclusion into the article (Speaking again as a neutral party). I’m sorry but that is mine and I would have to say that would be the opinion of most of the community if they were to comment on. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 20:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not offended in anyway by your comments. However, I think the same could be said of the entire article lacking International interest, yet somehow it warrants inclusion. I guess I feel that this fact seems to be fitting into a hole between inclusion and deletion. A grey area that purports a lesser criteria for the subject of the article than the facts written about them. Your thoughts? Alan.ca 04:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
In someways I'm surprised that this article exists but even the fact that even more minor stuff exists on the Wiki this really should not surprise me. I would say if you are unsure if it should be included leave it out. Again that is my opinion Æon Insanity Now!EA! 05:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the inclusion policy. However, if we allow an article to exist that probably should not, we must apply the same criteria to including facts as we did for including the article. In this case, I have a news article reporting a vote affecting a law for the province of Ontario that was poorly received by her constituents. If we are to consistently apply the inclusion policy, either what I am proposing should be included or all of the other cited facts will need to be removed leaving no article at all. Your thoughts? Alan.ca 20:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
HVAC
Do you know where I can find further information on displacement forced air duct design? Alan.ca 07:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes -- ASHRAE has books (aka 'design guides') available on conventional overhead, displacement, and underfloor air distribution. See the bookstore at www.ashrae.org. FactsAndFigures 14:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I contacted ASHRAE, a fellow there advised me that the ACCA Manuals are more appropriate. Alan.ca 15:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
CR Paganism Mediation
I've added a statement to the CR Paganism Mediation page. I sincerely appreciate your efforts to organize it but, sadly, for reasons I outlined there, I'm disinclined to participate. Thank you for your efforts toward mediation, though. --Pigmantalk • contribs 02:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to thank you for taking the time to contact us. As I've indicated in my statement on the request page, I feel the request for mediation is a frivolous one, filed as part of an ongoing pattern of harassment and intimidation. I'm sorry you got pulled into it. Per the statements on the mediaton request page, I am also quite disinclined to participate. But thank you for your work on MedComm :-) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Alan, I just read your post on the proposed mediation page. I have to ask, did you look at the evidence provided? The links to the arbitration, the RfC, the discussion on the talk page of the CR article, the users edit history, and the fact that the citations he was protesting are no longer even in the article? Sincerely, ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I look at it from this perspective: a user requested the assistance of MedCab to try and work out a dispute he is having with many users. This is the first MedCab case I have mediated where the respondents chose not to participate, but respond by criticizing the requester. If all of you had responded by saying you were not interested, case closed. I think there is an obvious dispute going on here and possibly talking out the concerns in a mediation may help cool the fire. The first step is to see if anyone is interested in discussing the matter. Alan.ca 04:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Alan, I think what's troubling me is that it seems to me that you are assuming that our frustration with Jefferson Anderson is unwarranted. It also seems to me that you are assuming that continued dialogue with him will make us less frustrated with his behaviour. AFAIK, None of us named in his request believe he has ever made any sort of attempt to resolve any sort of dispute with us. He promptly filed the mediation when he didn't like the results of the RfC, posting on my talk page that he would "happily take this to official mediation and arbitration if necessary."(diff) His statement, summation and request completely misrepresented the situation and contained insults. While perhaps a polite, "no thanks" would have been more appropriate, and I do somewhat regret not keeping it that simple, I think it is human that we responded with a certain degree of frustration and irritability. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- PS - In case it's not clear, Jefferson's treatment of other Wikipedians is currently one of the subjects in the Starwood arbitration. It's already progressed beyond Mediation. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)