Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Steel-cut oats3

Steel-cut oats3

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Talk:Talk:Steel-cut_oats

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) 1.What is a groat? There is a lack of an explicit definition of the word
 * 2) 2.To reiterate:My apologies for the reintroduction of this issue; I was unfamiliar with the format of this request form; I now included Matt Lunker talk page where we had "extensive discussion of the matter"; I placed it on his page because he was the one who took exception to my contribution. Please note, that I made three "good-faith attempts" to tailor the definition to accommodate his concerns, and every time an adverse determination was made, the article was reverted back to the previous version.
 * 3) 3 Maybe I was not clear, every time I try to meet his criteria, he shoots me down, as far as he is concerned if you want more information, one should click on the groat wiki-link; Before Wikipedia or even the internet was introduced to the general public, I found that articles employed a type of Socratic method, namely before discussing a matter in depth, one would define the terms that would be used through out the article. I understand, why a wiki-link would be used if one wanted more information. But if it over-used, it promotes a form of intellectual laziness, where a person does not take the time to develop their ideas so it can become more accessible. Now for a person who is just beginning to understand the subject matter, it is like asking some to look up a word they do not understand, and then find out it is explain in terms of other words they do not understand (sort of like a nested loop). I was under the impression that Wikipedia mission, is to make knowledge accessible to all, but it is hard to do if the other party decides the matter is closed.
 * 4) 4 If this is an inappropriate forum, please tell me specifically, what would be the more fitting option (in simplest terms what those options mean)


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * Additional issue 1
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. MrX2077 (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. MrX2077 (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject. For reasons given in previous filing. For other dispute resolution possibilities, see the list in the previous rejection statement. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 06:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)