Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/29

Jesus
 view edit delete watch Filed: 20:31, August 27 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * Extensive discussion at Talk:Jesus
 * Article request for comment
 * Further third opinion

Issues to be mediated

 * Whether to continue using both the BC/AD and BCE/CE era tags in violation of the Manual of Style as a compromise between editors who are offended by the use of either.
 * When it is appropriate to ignore the Manual of Style.

Parties' agreement to mediate
''All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.''
 * 1) Agree. Preston McConkie 20:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. =David ( talk )( contribs ) 08:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. John Smith&#39;s 09:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree. Sophia  12:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
''A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.''
 * Note: I have removed extraneous discussion from this page - only the bare bones of the dispute are required at the moment and the Committee asks that further comment wait until a decision on whether the case will be accepted has been made. Please link to the discussion that is mentioned above, and also to any prior steps in the dispute resolution process - 3rd opinion, RfCs or requests for informal mediation.
 * For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 22:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added four parties not listed by the filer, but appear from recent discussion (post-August 10) to be involved in this dispute. I have sent them all a standard introductory message, attached with a note that if I misjudged their involvement and they do not believe that they should be a party to any mediation request, they are asked to remove their name from the party list above with my apologies. In addition, if any of the parties currently listed believe that I have missed anyone that should be a party, feel free to let me know on my talk page.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  07:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject, parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  07:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Novak Đoković
 view edit delete watch Filed: 05:24, September 11 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * Talk:Novak Đoković (RfC)

Issues to be mediated

 * Should the article Novak Đoković be renamed Novak Djokovic?

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Should a variety of other names with a similar situation be renamed - see full list on talk page.  Daniel  07:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at the talk page.


 * 1) Agree. Yano 05:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. --HJensen, talk 05:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. --Tkynerd 17:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Disagree. --Bolonium 21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Disagree. // laughing man 00:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Disagree. --  G OD OF  J USTICE 19:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
 * Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  04:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I echo Daniel's rejection, and I must add that I reject it with prejudice against re-requesting. This has been requested 3 times within 24 hours, and rejected every time. There is no consensus for a page move, and trying to force mediation will not change it--as mediation works on consensus as well. Redirects are cheap, so I see no reason why this should be continually debated again. Iff there seems to be a wider consensus for a move and perhaps for mediation, then I wouldn't be opposed to a case being reconsidered, but at this present time, please do not post it again
 * For the Mediation Committee,  ^ demon [omg plz]  14:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)  Comment retracted, my error for not double checking facts.  ^  demon [omg plz]  11:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research
 view edit delete watch Filed: 05:01, September 11 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * WT:NOR. Extensive discussion on the talk page.
 * Multiple requests for feedback on the village pump.

Issues to be mediated

 * The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.


 * Whether sources should be addressed in relation to no original research.
 * What distinction, if any, between sources should be used.
 * What weight or preference should be given, or not, to various types of sources.

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.


 * Whether the context of the article (that is, scientific, historical, popular culture, BLP, current affairs and so on) has a bearing on the quality and type of sources permitted. Spenny 08:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Is this even proper?  I see this on the mediation page: "Mediation is not a forum for policy decisions."  I'm very willing to participate and think the result could be a good one but is it doable?  We are in a discussion of a policy page. (modified to make it grammatical) Minasbeede 01:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether the current and proposed policies correspond with Keep accepted Wikipedia practice (which may vary from subject to subject) in mind, but don't necessarily rule on it. Policy is supposed to reflect the consensus of Wikipedia, not just the policy-page editors. Jacob Haller 18:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether all distinctions based on the type of source (other than reliable/non-reliable) should be moved, at least temporarily, to a Wikipedia essay until consensus can be reached, and such distinctions deleted, at least temporarily, from WP:OR. CO GDEN  18:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether there is a consensus regarding the difference between primary and secondary sources. CO GDEN  18:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether, in actual widespread Wikipedia practice, primary sources are "rare", and secondary sources primarily "relied upon". CO GDEN  18:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether WP:OR is the appropriate policy page to make distinctions based on the type of source. CO GDEN  18:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether even a perceived tightening of the policy ( e.g. the word "rare" in regard to primary sources ) will provide fuel for deletionist edit warring. Squidfryerchef 03:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at the talk page.


 * 1) Agree. Withdraw request. We do not have full agreement for mediation and we seem to be making good progress towards a solution without mediator assistance. Vassyana 05:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. SamBC(talk) 08:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC) - Agree with Blueboar, the issues listed now are too broad and disorganised. SamBC(talk) 22:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree Spenny 08:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree wbfergus undefinedTalk 10:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree Dhaluza 11:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree Blueboar 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC) - removing my name from agreement... too many issues on the table for mediation to ever be successful.
 * 7) Agree. MastCell Talk 14:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Agree `'Míkka 15:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) * Disagree. Policies are not articles. There have always been a long negotiation over significant changes in policies, because policies are drawn "in house", "not on external references from reliable sources". I fail to see what difference mediation will bring beyond formatily, and the proposer did not explain the benefits. `'Míkka 19:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Agree Minasbeede 15:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Agree. Jacob Haller 18:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Agree. CO GDEN  18:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Agree Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Agree. Squidfryerchef 03:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
 * Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  06:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

John Howard
 view edit delete watch Filed: 13:52, September 16 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * Extensive talk on talkpage + vote
 * RfC on talkpage

Issues to be mediated

 * The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.


 * Whether or not information about New Guinea Copra Plantations should be included
 * If so, how much Copra Plantation information should be included?
 * Is it appropriate for newspaper articles about Copra Plantations to be used to reference other facts?

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.


 * Additional issue 1
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at the talk page.


 * 1) Agree. Lester2 06:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) [Tentatively] Agree.  Daniel  05:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Disagree. Sarah 06:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Disagree. Pete 06:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.


 * Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Vassyana 06:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

> NON-DISPLAYED NOTES

Naturally, I'm recused. -Daniel.

List of government agencies in comics
 view edit delete watch Filed: 16:14, September 16 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_28
 * Talk:List of government agencies in comics

Issues to be mediated

 * The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.


 * Groupthink's main issues with the article appear to have begun after a failed attempt to have the article deleted here Articles for deletion/List of government agencies in comics. --Basique 16:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The crux of Groupthink's current issue with the page, has him questioning the validity of one of the page's main references the Unofficial DCU Guide, which has the only detailed information on the subjects that can be found online. --Basique 16:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.


 * Additional issue 1
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at the talk page.


 * 1) Agree. --Basique 16:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Disagree. Groupthink 07:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
 * Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  09:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

300 (film)
 view edit delete watch Filed: 15:22, September 11 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

 * Various anonymous IPs
 * Various anonymous IPs
 * Various anonymous IPs
 * Various anonymous IPs
 * Various anonymous IPs

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * Extensive discussion on article talk page.

Issues to be mediated

 * The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.


 * Should the "Historical accuracy" section of the article 300 (film) include an account of remarks made by Touraj Daryaee?

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.


 * Additional issue 1
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at the talk page.


 * 1) Agree. --Javits2000 15:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. Talsal 14:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. Notthemanbehindthecurtain 10:37 18 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.246.118 (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.


 * Reject, parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  02:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Midge Potts
 view edit delete watch Filed: 19:44, September 23 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * Article Request for Comment

Issues to be mediated

 * Whether Midge Potts should be referred to as a he or she in the article. There are basically two sides to this dispute. One side says Potts should be called a she, per the Manual of Style, and how Potts is referred to, while the other side says Potts should be called a he, because Potts hasn't officially undergone a sex-change or taken "official" hormones.

Additional issues to be mediated
None at this time, unless anyone wants to add any...

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at the talk page.


 * 1) Agree. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. SamBC(talk) 21:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Disagree (see talk). Jinxmchue 22:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
 * Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  08:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fightin&#39; Texas Aggie Band
 view edit delete watch Filed: 21:19, September 19 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * RfC
 * Third party request

Issues to be mediated

 * The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.


 * WP:V and WP:RS as discussed
 * WP:NPOV and related template

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.


 * Additional issue 1
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at the talk page.


 * 1) Agree — BQZip01 —  talk 21:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.


 * Note: This case will be rejected soon if ThreeE does not indicate his interest in mediation. Since ThreeE was not notified until September 21, I'm giving this until September 30, at which time this request will be closed. Ral315 » 20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject, parties did not agree to mediation within nine days.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  05:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  05:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Hefner
 view edit delete watch Filed: 10:34, September 30 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * RFC
 * Talk Page discussion
 * Request For Arbitration (Denied)

Issues to be mediated

 * The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.


 * If well sourced, is describing Hefner as "disseminating hardcore pornography" prohibited by BLP rules?
 * Can Hefner's biography be divorced from the fortunes of Playboy Enterprises after his daughter became chairman of the board and CEO?
 * Is there proper sourcing to call Hefner a "voice" of libertarianism?

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at the talk page.


 * 1) Agree JerryGraf 10:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC).
 * 2) Disagree Jerry lost his request for comment so he wants to try and supercede it.Rogue Gremlin 12:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
 * Reject, all parties do not agree to mediation.
 * For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 13:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Classic Crime
 view edit delete watch Filed: 18:40, September 30 2007 (UTC) Notified: October 1 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * Talk:The Classic Crime

Issues to be mediated

 * The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.


 * Should Christian rock be listed as a genre?

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.


 * Additional issue 1
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at the talk page.


 * 1) Agree.Hoponpop69 18:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree.Skateremorocker
 * 3) Agree.Sk8erforzero —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree hey can i help out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.143 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
 * Reject. Insufficient discussion and prior dispute resolution attempts have been made to justify adding this case to the backlog at the Committee at the present time. In the interests of resolving this dispute amicably and in the briefest possible time for the participants, I suggest obtaining the help of the Mediation Cabal; click here for more details and instructions on filing a case there. I make this decision on the grounds that you would be better suited to asking for resolution at the Mediation Cabal, given your dispute is relatively narrow in the scope of the issues; and that I believe the parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  00:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  00:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)