Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/43

< Wikipedia:Requests for mediation‎ | Rejected
Click 'show' to view index of archives
This is an index of mediation proceedings of the Mediation Committee.

Closed cases

These are cases which underwent formal mediation of the Mediation Committee and have been closed. Cases which were closed as successful and as unsuccessful are all included in these archives.

Rejected requests

Requests for formal mediation are filed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Requests which are rejected by the Mediation Committee are substituted onto an archive page and then deleted.

Integral economics edit

This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a new request.
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 18:13, October 9 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

  1. Gospelnous (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Goethean (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Issue 1 - Goethean's overly inclusive 'interpretation' of 'original research' as it pertains to the content of (other) contributing editors at Wikipedia.
  • Issue 2 - Goethean's authority to arbitrarily (i.e. 'subjectively') determine relativity of content at Wikipedia and subsequently delete or otherwise deface another editor's contribution.
  • Issue 3 - Gospelnous' request that Goethean be disallowed editing privileges of Integral economics and Gospelnous content.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 are more than two parties involved in this case.

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. gospelnous (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. — goethean ॐ 15:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.


Decline, - Formal mediation is the final stage in content dispute resolution. Please try a content request for comment or informal mediation first.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siouxsie Sioux edit

This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a new request.
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 12:02, October 18 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

  1. Michaelbarreto (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • There's a difference of opinion on whether information pertaining to the reference "Siouxsie the Banshee" in the game World of Warcraft should be added to the Siouxsie_Sioux page.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 are more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Additional issue 1.
  • Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Michaelbarreto (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Do not agree, see talk. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Decline, - Formal mediation is the final stage in content dispute resolution. Please try a content request for comment or informal mediation first.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Behringer edit

This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a new request.
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 22:56, October 22 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

  1. EdatBehringer (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Binksternet (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

  • Discussions via talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Behringer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Behringer/Archive_1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Behringer/Archive_2

  • Discussions via user talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RyanAtBehringer

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Issue 1 - Binksternet is biased and does not present a neutral point of view when editing the Behringer page.
  • Issue 2 - Binksternet Persists In Adding Statements To The Behringer Page Which Are Based On Opinion And Not On Fact.

According to Wikipedia’s policies, editors should “assert facts, but not opinions.” Wikipedia’s policies define a fact as “a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.” Binksternet has violated this principle by repeatedly basing comments about Behringer on allegations made in legal complaints. A legal complaint is a one-sided (often inflammatory) recital of allegations and opinions made in the course of a dispute. A finder of fact is responsible for determining the validity of allegations made in a complaint. Allegations made in a complaint are not considered factual until a determination is made by the finder of fact. Therefore, by definition, allegations in a complaint are not fact and should not be the basis for statements posted on Wikipedia. Under Wikipedia’s own policies, only a decision by a court or “finder of fact” qualifies as fact.

Binksternet has engaged in an editing war and persists in attempting to insert comments about a trademark dispute that are based on allegations in a complaint filed by a competitor of Behringer. Binksternet persists in these attempts, even though the final decision by the finder of fact did not support the allegations cited by Binksternet.

  • Issue 3 - Binksternet Applies Different Editorial Standards To Different Pages He Edits, Based On His Opinion Of The Page Subject.

Binksternet’s bias is further demonstrated by the fact that he authored pages for a number of companies that compete with Behringer, including Carvin, Universal Audio, BGW Systems, Sweetwater Sound and Yorkville Sound. However, Binksternet applies different editorial standards to the Behringer page than to the other professional audio company pages he also edits.

For example, on multiple occasions, Binksternet insisted on removing a reference to an award won by Behringer as one of the finalists in “Entrepreneur of the Year” by Ernst & Young of Germany. Binksternet stated that the award is “worthless” and is watered down because there are so many finalists. However, Binksternet applied a different editorial standard on a page he edited, for awards won by another professional audio company – Sweetwater Sounds. For example, on the Sweetwater Sounds page, Binksternet included an “Inc. Magazine” award for being the 351st fastest growing private business in the US in 1995 and a reference to an “Indiana Governor’s Art’s Award”. I do not believe that the Sweetwater Sounds awards acceptable to Binksternet are qualitatively different from the Behringer award Binksternet sought to remove as “puffery”.

Further, none of the other professional audio company pages Binksternet created contain any sections on legal disputes. Other editors have also noted this point, and attempted to remove the dispute section, but Binksternet persists in having the section reinstated.

  • Issue 4 - Binksternet Statements Indicate a Bias Against Behringer.

Binksternet has made comments which call into question his ability to remain neutral. Binksternet has stated that “I'm not a fan of Behringer in any sense, and in fact I am angry at Behringer business practices.” Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC). Given Binksternet’s stated bias against Behringer, it is clear that he cannot provide a neutral point of view on the company, which ultimately undermines the credibility of Wikipedia.

Behringer has reached out to Binksternet and attempted to establish a constructive dialogue in the hope of achieving an appropriate resolution to this problem. Binksternet's response was that he was not interested in engaging Behringer directly. [See Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)].

  • Issue 5 - Binksternet Engages in Disruptive Editing.

Binksternet has created a long-term problem by persistently editing the Behringer page with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources and insists on giving undue weight to a minority view – in this case, a legal complaint filed by a Behringer competitor which ultimately was dismissed by the finder of fact. This disruptive behavior by an editor, such as Binksternet, harms Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor such as Binksternet continues with impunity. The sheer volume of edits by Binksternet to the legal controversy section of the Behringer page underscores the persistence of the problem.

  • Issue 6 - Binksternet Engages in Tendentious Editing.

Binksternet has engaged in editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. Binksternet has engaged in repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors.

An example of Binksternet’s tendentious editing was his repeated insertion of a statement accusing Behringer of “IP Theft”. Again, Binksternet’s comments were based on allegations contained in a complaint filed by a competitor. This comment was ultimately removed by “Stiffle”, after we engaged The Wikimedia Support Team, (case #2009092810001281). (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABehringer&action=historysubmit&diff=317371757&oldid=317329259)

  • Issue 7 - Binksternet is Improperly using Wikipedia’s Policies to Further His Own Agenda.

Binksternet is engaged in an edit war and improperly claiming that other editors are engaged in vandalism by reverting his comments. Binksternet is engaging in this activity in an effort to damage Behringer’s repution. This behavior, in addition to improperly damaging the reputation of Behringer, undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. As noted by Wikipedia, engaging in improper claims of vandalism may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.

  • Issue 8 - Binksternet has Rebuffed All Efforts To Resolve Differences.

Behringer has made several efforts to reach out to Binksternet to discuss resolution of the problem and has even invited him to visit Behringer’s office to meet in person with management. Binksternet responded that he “do[es] not wish to communicate off-wiki nor do I intend to come visit.”


Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 are more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Additional issue 1.
  • Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. EdatBehringer (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Decline - Formal mediation is the final stage in content dispute resolution. Please try a content request for comment or informal mediation first.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kitchen exhaust cleaning edit

This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a new request.
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 20:50, October 28 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

  1. Ahering@cogeco.ca (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. GreasePolice (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Issue 1.GreasePolice has reverted my edist a number of times and has refused to communicate with me despite my attempt to do so on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GreasePolice#Kitchen_exhaust_cleaning_article .
  • Issue 2. I believe that the user is reverting edits about the hot pressure washing method of cleaning, including a picture that shows that procedure and a decidedly nonpartisan verbal description, as he is in that business and does may not use that particular method. I used to be in that business and both chemicals and hot water pressure are routinely used. The trade associations he references clearly acknowledge using the method, there is photographic evidence of it and he just deletes the content without any explanation and ignores communication attempts. He has also placed a direct quote from a stakeholder in the article, which I believe does not pass muster in terms of Wiki style. If there were some legitimate reason to exclude the content I added, I would certainly be interested in finding out what it is. He also uses unsubstantiated statements, such as the comment about the reputation of the cleaning companies. Sez who?

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 are more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Additional issue 1.
  • Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. --20:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Achim (talk)#

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Decline - Formal mediation is the final stage in content dispute resolution. Please try a content request for comment or informal mediation first.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Anti-Shannar riots of Sivakasi edit

This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a new request.
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 02:53, October 30 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

  1. Anandks007 (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. 59.96.142.55 (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

  • Example link 1.Tried to resolve in talk page, but other users not complying.
  • Example link 2.
Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Issue 1.Neutrality of article disputed. Threats and name calling received on userpage.
  • Issue 2.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 are more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Additional issue 1.
  • Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Axxn (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Decline - Formal mediation is the final stage in content dispute resolution. Please try a content request for comment or informal mediation first.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Rudolph Valentino edit

This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a new request.
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 14:01, October 31 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

  1. maggiedane (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

Oh so many, I don't have all the links anymore though

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • This user has constantly been harassing me and deleting USEFUL links (NOT only my own, but others as well) from silent film related articles. What they once deemed acceptable (such as Golden Silents) they are now removing. In addition to that they have somehow (I can not work Wikipedia) added my sites, forgetthetalkies.com and rudolphvalentino.org to spam lists with no basis for this whatsoever. I feel absolutely helpless defending these topics as I have no clue how the dang to work Wikipedia.
  • Rudolphvalentino.org is a site for The Rudolph Valentino Society which I am a part of but not the ONLY person involved. The Society is in charge of a film festival in his namesake which will be held at a major theatre in Hollywood, The Egyptian, this May. I would think this is worthy news but this bully has decided elsewise. I am absolutely livid with their actions and I would like to see some FAIR MEDIATION occur. Why should The Louise Brooks Society or the Buster Keaton Society be allowed to link on Wikipedia any more so than us? Aren't a similar team of people behind these sites?
  • To boot Livie has had it so out for me that it has gone on reverting my edits immediately, even when using SOURCED book references complete with page numbers (this happened numerous times on the Hollywood Babylon article with which we've fought over many times and I was finally able to prove my case through other sources.) Thats the first one that comes to mind, but they've done it several other times as well. If you look at its edits you'll see a revert with even other members asking 'why did you do that?' It has never given an answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggiedane (talk • contribs) 14:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ruling on silent film sites, last time I tried to fight this insane system was inept, again not just involving my own projects. The criteria seems to be applied willy nilly and thus a lot of solid well researched information is being left out. For example I linked pages from rudolphvalentino.org containing articles by Vilma Banky and Karl Dane's published biographers...and Livie ruled this 'spam'. Published authorities on the subject who are not me yet this is all 'self published'!!! On several occasions Wikipedia has stolen my articles (Natacha Rambova, Miriam Cooper, so forth) and yet refused to use my links...which is a touch odd. I'd rather see them deleted than stolen. I used to work hard on these pages but I'm sick of the treatment and bullying by such users. I would like a fair ruling on these links and something to be done about members who try to bully others away.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 are more than two parties involved in this case.


Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Maggiedane (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Decline - Formal mediation is the final stage in content dispute resolution. Please try and content request for comment or informal mediation first.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Byzantine Empire edit

This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a new request.
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 23:11, November 14 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

  1. Monsieurdl (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Cody7777777 (talk · contribs)
  3. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)
  4. Tom harrison (talk · contribs)
  5. Cplakidas (talk · contribs)
  6. Dinkytown (talk · contribs) Self invited/served
  7. Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

  • [1], consensus discussion in the talk page
  • [2], RfC from other editors
Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Consensus has been reached to remove the successor states from the infobox, and to include them in the article. Removing the successor states was accomplished, and enough time is needed to include all successor states in a section, but Cody7777777 refuses to accept the consensus, and has constantly reverted the removal in the infobox despite warnings not to do so on several occasions.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 are more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Additional issue 1.
  • Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Monsieurdl mon talk 23:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Postpone. I am going to postpone this RfM until the complaint over edit warring here is resolved, as it might render a mediation here moot. Monsieurdl mon talk 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree, though with reservations (see talk). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sorry, but No. Tom Harrison Talk 14:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree (please see the talk page for more explanations). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Disagree, See talk page. Dinkytown (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Decline as all parties do not agree to mediate.
For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Andrew Mango edit

This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a new request.
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 03:56, November 11 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

  1. Kansas Bear (talk · contribs),
  2. Toddintr (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

  • [[3]]
  • Example link 2.
Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • That Constantinople is historically accurate name of the city until 1930. Turkish Postal Law itself is used to indicate the change of name for the city.
  • Andrew Mango is 1)Not a historian, 2)Is a writer intent on selling books within Turkey, therefore uses the historically incorrect name of "Istanbul" to garner sales.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 are more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Additional issue 1.
  • Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Agree. Todd (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Decline. - Formal mediation is the final stage in content dispute resolution. Please try a content request for comment or informal mediation first.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/43&oldid=1208759321"