User talk:Jcoonrod
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Hunger Project), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikipedical (talk • contribs).
- Please, as I remarked in email I would like your permission to post on my user talk page our correspondence on this matter, since everything else has been in public on talk pages. I suppose that even without your permission, I can post my own remarks (and if I don't hear from you in a day or so I will do so), but I think it would be a lot clearer with the context of what I was replying to. - Jmabel | Talk 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that we can resolve this issue in Mediation, instead of skipping directly to Arbitration/Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and shifting the focus from content debate to personal debate. I would be willing to hear your side of the story, and yet still have more time to discuss viability of citable referenced sources in blockquote format. If you do not wish to go back to the Mediation option, I am curious as to what will happen to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Hunger Project in the meantime? Surely you can agree that we have both contributed to some degree of inappropriate behaviour over the past month and a half. It would be in the spirit of the Wikipedia Community to move past these personal debates and try to focus on content-related discussion, through the process of Mediation. I do apologize for any inappropriate behaviour not related to content discussion, and will correct my actions in the future.Smeelgova 04:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- The response to my numerous requests for suggestions that could lead to to a truce format pending mediation resulted only in many more additions of what seems to be your point of view. While I continue to be open to any suggestions that could lead to a mutually acceptable result, it appears to me that arbitration is the most likely path to achieving this.--Jcoonrod 21:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your continued postings at my discussion page, out of format
- The directions at the top of my discussion page state to post any new messages at the bottom of the page. Since you have not succeeded in following said directions, this is the second time that I request that you discontinue posting any messages on my discussion page, and limit discussion to the talk page of any related article.Smeelgova 21:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Note to Smeelgova - you agreed to mediation, which requires that I add a special header to your discussion page. You are free to move it around.Jcoonrod 23:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nowhere in the wikipedia guide to mediation does it say that the RFM is added as a "special header". Therefore, new commentary would go at the bottom of the page. But other than this incident, please refrain from further commentary on my discussion page. Thank you.Smeelgova 23:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- On the "Requests for Mediation" page you will find that instruction.Jcoonrod 23:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nowhere in the wikipedia guide to mediation does it say that the RFM is added as a "special header". Therefore, new commentary would go at the bottom of the page. But other than this incident, please refrain from further commentary on my discussion page. Thank you.Smeelgova 23:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Note to Smeelgova - you agreed to mediation, which requires that I add a special header to your discussion page. You are free to move it around.Jcoonrod 23:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, after review of Requests for Mediation, it simply says to post on the user's talk page, but not necessarily at the top, the instructions seem to be ambiguous on this issue. In any event, please refrain from further commentary on my discussion page. Thank you.Smeelgova 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 20:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger
This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the above link.
For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Advice Request re Hunger Project Ruling
Fred - I'd like your advice. The ArbCom ruled that negative material on THP needed to be in context to be included, but that has not been done. Smeelgova's team continues to use the page as a bibliography of incidents of old media attacks that basically just quote each other - providing no context at all - just plenty of insinuation. I propose replacing the whole page with a simpler article, more in keeping with the actual intent of Wikipedia and the size of THP in the scheme of things - which I've drafted at User:Jcoonrod/sandbox. Given your understanding of the ruling, is there any reason I should not be able to simply replace what's there with this?--Jcoonrod 21:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would not replace it with a stub, but edit the criticism section so that the time those criticisms were made is plain. Fred Bauder 23:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
