Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Thermal lance/Housekeeping

[Moved from main RfM page]

 * Continued from User talk:Eyrian.

The section Thermal lance has been present since 1 January 2006 without anyone feeling strongly enough about it to delete it. User:Eyrian deleted it at 10:14, 13 June 2007 without discussion. I reverted this deletion with edit comment "Rv deletion of "in fiction" section, or please discuss". Eyrian re-deleted it. I transferred the discussion from the edit comments to User talk:Eyrian. I felt that mediation or arbitration is better than an edit war. But many pages about real technology have a "use in fiction" section.

Eyrian said in User talk:Eyrian that he has been deleting such sections whenever he finds them. But such sections are interesting to many people. And the section under dispute has been there for 17 months: it is not a new addition.

Anthony Appleyard 05:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
Greetings!

I would like to thank you all for agreeing to Mediation. Taking that first step by agreeing to work together to solve a dispute is a major step in the process, as it shows a commitment to finding a solution desirable by all.

A few clarifications about what's going to happen:-


 * I'm going to search for a comprimise for this article only. Anthony suggests, in the statement above (which I moved from the main RfM page), that Eyrian has done this in other places. However, mediation would not be effective for every article, and as such we'll be focusing on just the Appearances in fiction section in Thermal lance.
 * If you honestly don't think that you'll accept a comprimise version (ie. you know what you want, and refuse to budge on anything less), than this whole procedure will be pointless. I need to help you two work towards a version of that section which meets both your approval.
 * Formalities: Mediation will take place here. I'm a member of this Committee. However, if one of you two don't want me to take this case, for whatever reason (or no reason in particular), that's fine. We need optimal circumstances for mediation to work, and if a party isn't happy with the mediator for whatever reason, then it may not work. If I could just get you to say 'agree' or 'disagree' to my mediation below (where the ...'s are), that'd be great.
 * I'm open to your mediation. --Eyrian 06:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask - either here, on my talk, or email me. I will begin when both of you have indicated your preference for mediator (I'll begin if you both agree, that is), and we'll get this ball rolling. Could I ask that both of you watchlist this page, please? Cheers,  Daniel  06:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask - either here, on my talk, or email me. I will begin when both of you have indicated your preference for mediator (I'll begin if you both agree, that is), and we'll get this ball rolling. Could I ask that both of you watchlist this page, please? Cheers,  Daniel  06:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Anthony, do I have your assent?  Daniel  06:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. (Sorry, I thought that my agreement is already in Requests for mediation/Thermal lance.) Anthony Appleyard 08:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was more asking whether you were fine with me in particular being the mediator. Now that that's sorted, let's get going.  Daniel  08:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. Anthony Appleyard 08:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)