User talk:AGK/Archive/25
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Activity level: full • Current activity: observing
This user is currently being considered for bureaucratship. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/AGK 2. |
- The following user talk subpage an archive of archived discussions on User talk:AGK. Please do not modify it. New discussions should be raised through this link; to contact this user, see User:AGK/Contact. For an overview of old discussions, see User talk:AGK/Archive.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
[edit] NPOV Question concerning the article about Tibet!
Recently, I became very interested in the history and cultural of the Tibetan autonomous region. Wikipedia appears to be very helpful when it comes to things of such nature. However, after reading the articles a few times and comparing to what I found in academic websites, I became very angry by the fact that so many people would try to enter their own bias into such an issue. Most of the users who edit the Tibet History/Culture page are generally supportive of the Tibetan cause. In the United States of America, freedom of speech is allowed and I entirely agree with that. But, I do find it seriously biased when "nationalism", "modern politics" would be introduced into an article devoted to Tibetan history and culture. If I would like to learn and do research in English culture, then I would probably hear brief mentions of the slave trade but really nothing too much on the issue. I'd probably would not find too many things on Scottish independence movements either! I believe that many users are abusing the right to free speech by forcing their ideas upon others. All the suggestions I brought up were immediately closed and almost no one provided a reason for it. I feel quite compelled to report this issue to an administrator. I informed many people who were involved in the debate to focus on history and culture. Instead, some chose to label me as a "communist" while others started to tell me about human rights abuses in China. I really find none of these related to Tibetan history and culture. Based on my research, Tibet has a recorded history of over 1400 years. Ancient Chinese dynasties have had extensive writings about this region from such a long time ago. Yet, when it comes to history, many parts of article are devoted to HISTORY OF THE INDEPENDENCE STRUGGLE 1950's to the modern era. What happened to the other 1350 years?? In fact, how does the EVALUATION OF THE TIBETAN COMMUNITY IN EXILE have to do about Tibetan History and Culture? It absolutely has nothing to do culture. A brief mention of the "independence" move would suffice. I hope such information should be moved to TIBETAN INDEPENDENCE wikiarticles, which exist already. The bias found is just incredibly and many many facts are either false or lack sources. Many of the sources used are from "TIBETAN INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT" websites and yet almost none have a source linked to an academic website. Considering Tibet has a written history of at least 1400years, I find it very hard to believe that they couldn't find anything before the Independence movement in the 1950's. I really hope that we can find a common solution to this problem and try to stay on the topic of Tibetan Culture and History and instead of human rights abuses. A brief mention would probably suffice and we definitely don't need 75% of the article devoted to the independence movement!
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historychaser4 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good afternoon, and thank you for getting in touch. Before I answer your query, I will note that editors cannot abuse the right of free speech on Wikipedia, because there is no right to free speech on this project: see Wikipedia:Free speech, which gives further details.
- Furthermore, I will note that our articles are governed by the Neutral Point of View policy, which details the requirements for Wikipedia entries to maintain a balanced scope on articles, and to maintain a neutral tone throughout—essentially, just what it says on the tin: a neutral point of view. If an article does not adhere to the NPOV policy, editors will propose, or, indeed, just go ahead and make, changes to the article to bring it up to the standards of neutrality required.
- You've clearly been proposing such changes, and that's a good sign. However, your allegations that the proposals are being rejected without discussion are something that I cannot comment on, as I do not have a link to where you made that proposal. Thus, we have two choices:
- Provide me with a link to the proposed change which you allege has been closed without due discussion and attention;
- Start a new thread, and provide me with a link, and I will monitor the thread, and observe the reaction to it, and subsequently whether fair attention is being paid to it.
- Personally, I prefer the latter course of action. However, the choice is yours. Which option would you preferred we follow here? Waiting to hear from you, AGK § 17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
REPLY: I must first thank you for your "speedy" reply and appreciate your time and efforts to address the issue on the article written about Tibet's history and culture. Allow me to clear up some of the "confusion." After reading the wikiarticle on Tibet and conducting some historical research, I came to a conclusion that the article was biased heavily. My first course of action was to read the wikiarticle explaining POV. Thus, I marked the article as "POV" and also wrote on the discussions page about the reasons why I chose to mark it as biased. Unfortunately, I received some comments that were quite negative and almost to an obscene nature. After a day or two, I noticed that my "POV" was removed and someone had also deleted my comment on the discussion page. Again, I marked it as "POV" but unsurprisingly, another user managed to delete the POV along with my second comment. Afterwards, I believe you "protected" the Tibetan History and Culture page from vandalism and the "protection" will shortly expire. I will try to post some comments concerning the article and mark it as POV while refrain from editing it until I gathered enough resources. In the mean time, I hope you can "keep" the article as a "POV" article and protect it from further vandalism.
If you would take a look at that page now, then you will again find obscene and entirely inapprpriate comments made to some user(s) who share the view as I do. I hope that you can try to negotiate a "truce" and try to protect it from vandalism. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historychaser4 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Continued uncivil and harrassing comments from a user you unblocked
Hi AGK. M1rth (talk · contribs) continues to make comments that are uncivil and unconstructive, have nothing to do with improving article content, but are rather focused on impugning the motives of other editors. Two examples can be found here: [1] and [2]. Jd2718 asked you to investigate his behaviour a couple of days ago (based on both his and my concerns) and the untoward behaviour is simply continuing. Could you please do something and actually report back to one of us as to the results? Thanks. Tiamuttalk 12:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, if you read the whole discussion at Talk:Za'atar#Sources, you will see that while I have sourced my edits to reliable sources, M1rth keeps deleting the information. When I respon providing more sources, he doesn't respond to the content issue, ignores it and accuses me of sharing the POV of sockuppets. This is really not helping to contribute to a collaborative editing environment. M1rth also deleted information I added at Falafel, claiming that because it was restored by a sockppupet after being deleted by him and others that it wasn't appropriate to the article. He refused to listen to my explanations that I had authored the material and that it was all sourced and that the sockpuppeting was irrelevant. He then had the page protected with the material excluded and is continuing to resist it's inclusion, based on his opinion that it's somehow controversial. Is this how Wikipedia is supposed to work? I don't think so. Please do something. Tiamuttalk 12:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- As for the info at Falafel, this was part of dealing with the disruptive edits of a variety of sockpuppets of Jamiechef2 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser); as you will see on the checkuser page, the user is QUITE disruptive, and does share POV with Tiamut. The particular sockpuppet in question was Alcatrees, whose edits you can find in the page history, and I did not have involvement prior to tracking down the sockpuppet's damage from the original checkuser result.
- Since then, the sockpuppetteer's conduct has included making named accounts to personally attack me on the basis of my questioning WP:SYN, WP:RS, and WP:V problems with some of the sources Tiamut seeks to use. I've been having enough time recently dealing with these, and hadn't commented on the issues on those talk pages at all due to relatively limited time. The last edit I made to Za'atar was March 9, and that was due to the fact that the provided source was not viable (a cookbook, not a reviewed scholarly work which additionally did not actually use the words "arab cuisine") for the claim being made (see diff). The page protection on Falafel was made NOT based on me disagreeing with Tiamut, but because she and Gilabrand had pushed the section in and then edit warred over the content of the section. I did my best to create an alternative, a place where the content could be worked out to a neutral version without subjecting the article to needless edit warring by POV warriors.
- If it is important to Tiamut to force things into the article, I believe it should be important for her to get her sourcing right and write in a neutral manner. In Talk:Za'atar:Sources she is failing to do this. This includes drawing WP:OR/WP:SYN conclusions on history based on non-WP:RS-viable items such as non-peer-reviewed cookbooks; quoting "references" such as this that do not mention the subject at hand in text (quoting an article on sesame in "southwest asia" as reason to claim Za'atar is a "spiced salt" because it refers to a "spice mixture za'atar" recipe including scented salt, ancillary to an attempt to WP:SYN one line from one source with another line from another source to draw a conclusion, based on the only single line a google search will pull), and inserting further wording trying to claim the spice as "arab" by adding in various arab "diasporas" to the intro. As of yet, you will note I have not reverted this, despite my misgivings on her continual abuse of WP:SYN and poor sourcing. M1rth (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- It saddens me to see you are unwilling to even view the situation before attacking me based on Tiamut's gross misrepresentation of the events in question. I provided numerous links and information, and instead of speaking with me you choose to attack me and threaten to block me. I have only behaved in good faith in this matter and would prefer you had done likewise. I will remain in the IRC channel as long as I can today but as I mentioned earlier, my time is extremely limited currently.M1rth (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I have considered the matter at hand, and it is evident that you are beginning to get disruptive. I have not attacked you, but rather issued you with a final warning, with the intention of limiting damage to the project: which, unfortunately, is the current end product of many of your edits. Kindly refrain from disruptive and tenacious editing in the future: it is not helpful. AGK § 17:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to issue an additional warning to all warring parties in this situation: whilst M1rth may be going over the top with his editing intensity, his intentions are good, and I'm not any more impressed by this seeming witch hunt than with M1rth's disruption. In future, rather than trying to get the other "side" blocked, collaborating productively would be more effective in improving the project. Please do not run with any more tattling unless it is necessary. AGK § 18:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I have considered the matter at hand, and it is evident that you are beginning to get disruptive. I have not attacked you, but rather issued you with a final warning, with the intention of limiting damage to the project: which, unfortunately, is the current end product of many of your edits. Kindly refrain from disruptive and tenacious editing in the future: it is not helpful. AGK § 17:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hummus
I question this edit, which has removed etymological information and strays from previous consensus not to include additional transliterations in the header. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you provide a link to where such consensus was established? Additionally, I draw your attention to the above cautionary note: reporting disruption on M1rth's part to me should be a last resort, not the first port of call, and you should strive to discuss any questionable changes on M1rth's part, on his own talk page, before proceeding elsewhere. Regards, AGK § 21:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you point me to this supposed "consensus"? I sure as heck can't find one here. M1rth (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- [3][4]. I'm neutral as to what additional transliterations might go into the header, but I question making this change again without any discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, perhaps there is some consensus. However, I do not believe M1rth had disruptive intent in making that edit; having said that, it probably is counter-consensus. M1rth, do you have any thoughts? AGK § 21:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- (edit conflict) Moreover, you (M1rth) removed additional Arab language material without discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am not claiming M1rth had disruptive intent in his edit. I question the lack of discussion and the removal of content. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- In answer to your query, you (probably) are correct in challenging it: there appears to be some basic consensus against the edit. Perhaps it's best to wait for M1rth's response at this point in time. AGK § 21:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I hadn't seen the cautionary note. I've been trying to mediate the edit warring over the article for some time and had seen your interaction with the editor, who may have resumed edit warring over something which had been stabilized after I asked for comment and got the above replies. I don't interpret the editor's behaviour as an intention to disrupt. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not at all, I wasn't pointing that note out as some sort of warning; rather, I was drawing your attention to the somewhat volatile nature of the situation. Anyway, best wait for M1rth's reply at the moment. AGK § 22:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- After very carefully (and probably wasting more time than I needed) analyzing the talk page, there is no "consensus" - either on the origin of the word (google searches come up with greek, turk, arab, quotation in article quotes Plato and Socrates about it or about the idea of mashing up chickpeas as a method of food preparation). Indeed, the only section I can see Gwen agreeing with someone (but no consensus by any means) includes another two sockpuppets of Jamiechef2 (Jfws2890 (talk · contribs) plus an IP sock). Gwen, in that discussion, says "the origin could be early classical or pre-classical Greek, pre-Hittite Anatolian or even neolythic Levant..." and later "most of the reliable-seeming sources straightforwardly say hummus has been known for thousands of years and the origin is unknown." - which makes me wonder why she's jumping on me now for simply listing the languages, rather than trying the rather POV claim that the word assigns to only one language. M1rth (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not at all, I wasn't pointing that note out as some sort of warning; rather, I was drawing your attention to the somewhat volatile nature of the situation. Anyway, best wait for M1rth's reply at the moment. AGK § 22:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I hadn't seen the cautionary note. I've been trying to mediate the edit warring over the article for some time and had seen your interaction with the editor, who may have resumed edit warring over something which had been stabilized after I asked for comment and got the above replies. I don't interpret the editor's behaviour as an intention to disrupt. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- In answer to your query, you (probably) are correct in challenging it: there appears to be some basic consensus against the edit. Perhaps it's best to wait for M1rth's response at this point in time. AGK § 21:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Indeed, perhaps there is some consensus. However, I do not believe M1rth had disruptive intent in making that edit; having said that, it probably is counter-consensus. M1rth, do you have any thoughts? AGK § 21:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- [3][4]. I'm neutral as to what additional transliterations might go into the header, but I question making this change again without any discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you point me to this supposed "consensus"? I sure as heck can't find one here. M1rth (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just FYI: I'll be out for probably the next four days. Real Life > Wikipedia. M1rth (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wales' talk page
He generally prefers it open to anonymous edits wherever possible, so I set a short expiry rather than having it indefinitely semi-protected. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've arranged for someone to restore the move=sysop as well, by the way. My apologies if it was your intent to come back due to this concern (all protection being removed), but anonymous IP's wouldn't understand this, unfortunately. Daniel (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] links
I was thinking about adding an external link to Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories. When I tried to do that I found a message not to add any inappropriate links. I tried to add a link I found in the Bad Astronomy Blog. Bad Astronomy is a website that deals with myths and misconceptions in astronomy. There was an excellent article on conspiracy theory there. Is it okay to add it to links?--Rotogen (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the site, so that's not really a call I'd be comfortable making. However, I would encourage you to read this page, which contains Wikipedia's guideline on linking to external sites. In particular, this section may be useful. Best regards, AGK § 18:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RfA - Toddst1
Hi AGK, thanks for supporting my RfA, which passed with 42 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutrals. Special thanks goes to my nominator, Kakofonous. I'm pleased that the Wikipedia community has trusted me with the mop and I take it very seriously. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thank-you
Hi AGK! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1). |
[edit] Thankyou
Just wanted to say thanx for suppoerting my case the other day. The "Thriller" article has been nominated for GA. Realist2 (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Great stuff, Realist! You're clearly turning a new leaf after your unblock, and I'm glad that I pushed to have the block lifted :) Keep up the impressive work, AGK § 11:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for your support!
Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
Thank you very much for your quick support. It's a promise that I will never misuse it in anyway. I am going to read the documentations first and then get back to you again for further clarifications (if requires). Cheers and Happy Saint Patrick's Day! -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 12:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Duly noted, thank you. AGK § 15:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] VandalSniper Request
I have requested permission to use VandalSniper's rollback feature. [5]Rgoodermote 02:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Y Done, you now have access. All the best, AGK § 13:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you mate, happy editing. Rgoodermote 20:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] VandalSniper
I have requested permission to use the VandalSniper application Thanks Staffwaterboy Talk♂ 15:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Question
Hi AGK, I was wondering, when you have been an admin for a year, do you plan on running for bureaucratship again? Even if you decide not to go for RfB again, I hope you'll consider running for ArbCom later this year instead. You're one of the few people who I believe are qualified for the role. Acalamari 22:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I can definitely say I won't be running for AC this year, that's for sure :) I gave it serious thought last year, and was actually very close to running, but my sanity returned at the last minute ;P Actually (and call me a raving lunatic if you wish) I rather enjoy the Arbitration process and the contributions I can bring to it, although it can be nasty at times. My current role—I help out as a clerk, and make occasional comments all over the place—is quite satisfying, and I don't have any desire to become an Arbitrator at this time. Perhaps in the years to come, yes, but for this year, I'm afraid not, Acalamari :)
- On the topic of bureaucratship, I'm not sure to be honest. I've had upwards of 10 people approach me thus far (three in one day on IRC, actually) and ask me if I'm running, and I'm not sure where it's all coming from :) Granted, I was involved in the RfA discussions of late, and have been doing SNOW closures for a long time now, but again, this is along the lines of the AC scenario: I'm happy where I am :) The current bureaucrat team is well-staffed, and I'm sure there are plenty more qualified candidates than me ;) I may offer my services at RfB some time down the line, when I've more time—but, at the moment, I'm pretty busy off-Wiki, and I've also got the cultural edit warring work group to keep me busy!
- To round-up my answer to your original question, it's a "not for a long while", and "not for a while" no to the AC and 'cratship, respectively. I'm not ruling it out absolutely, but I'm happy as I am :) Thank you very much for the compliment, however—I must be doing something right! All the best, AGK § 22:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RFA thanks
Thanks for the support | ||
Thanks for your support on my request for adminship. It passed 92/2/2, and I'll be sure to do a good job with my fancy new tools. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
[edit] No "consensus" whatsoever
I disagree with this edit [6], it appears to be a deliberate attempt to white-wash the criticism of the movie by a known scholar, and a violation of WP:NPOV. Two editors, with similar points of view, making an agreement does not amount to "consensus". From the archives of that page, it's clear that User:Talsal was always alone in his attempts to censor an opposing point of view, and never had the support of the other editors even when he requested a RFC, User:Javits2000 giving in to User:Talsal's demand is not "consensus". Please undo your edit and reopen the mediation, I am contesting this selective censorship of negative criticisms from reliable sources in that section, which is against WP:RS and WP:NPOV.--CreazySuit (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am not going to undo my edit, although I will grant you leeway to revert me if you so desire. Similarly, I am not going to re-open the Mediation: insofar as the issues listed there are concerned, the case is resolved. If you do have a desire to undertake dispute resolution on the case, I would suggest you start primarily at the article in question's talk page, as described at WP:DR. All the best, AGK § 18:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RfA Thanks
Thanks! | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
[edit] 9/11 arbitration
Dear AGK,
thank you for your message. Can you tell me please what the scope of the arbitration will be? Will it be only the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, or also all related articles, especially 9/11 ? I would very much like to include the 9/11 article, because I am being accused of edit warring and 3RR violation in that article, and the dissensus visible at that article is i.m.o. at the root of the name dispute in the conspiracy theories article. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, arbitration will most likely not have a "scope" with regards to articles—rather, arbitration focusses on the conduct of editors involved in a dispute. I'm reluctant to say more, as I'm the Clerk for the case, rather than a party, and I would prefer to stay neutral, but I would encourage you to provide any evidence you see as relevant, and, of course, to review the arbitration guide, if you are unfamiliar with the on-Wiki arbitration process. All the best, AGK § 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] POV
I advise you regarding edit warring by warned THUGCHILDz with these POV reverts against 4 different editors: 1, 2, 3 and many others of 19 March. You know this case pertinent National sport and I hope you consider this unfair situation because I was blocked and THUGCHILDz not yet: it's crazy!!!! May I edit for improve article national sport? Regards,--PIO (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Requests....
Hello. Thanks for testing out my secret page! Anyway, I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions:
- Please could you issue me with Rollback Privs? It's standard on Twinkle, but it never works for me, so I'm requesting it instead. I understand the differences between Undo and rollback, and I don't have a history [as far as I can remember] of edit warring. Thanks in advance.
- What do you do as an ArbCom clerk? Would I be able to become one, once I have accrued enough edits & experience?
- Can you explain to me what Mediation is?
Thanks, User:Microchip80I am Microchip08 in disguise! 13:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC).
- Hi there, Microchip. I'll get a response out to you soon, when I've got time to do it proper justice. In the meanwhile, do me a little favour, and read Wikipedia:Rollback feature, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks and Wikipedia:Mediation for me :) I'll get a longer response to you as soon as I can. All the best, AGK § 17:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just bumping this so that it isn't achived. Please ignore. Microchip 08 19:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Before I offer a reply, have you read the material I linked? AGK § 21:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- MiszaBot: do not archive. AGK § 22:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Microchip: your reply to my above question? AGK § 22:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Yes & Yes. So is mediation simply being a "middle man" between two warring/disputing parties? Microchip 08 09:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and congratulations on your promotion to Clerk. Microchip 08 09:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you ;) Yes, I will flag you with the rollback tool—you seem to know what you're doing. An ArbCom Clerk simply keeps the RfAr pages moving smoothly—opening cases, tidying up requests, updating the list of arbitrators as individual arbs. state they'll be inactive for a bit, etc. Again, WP:AC/C gives a full description of the duties of a Clerk. As for becoming one, it seems to be that one hangs around the clerks' noticeboard, registers their interest in clerking and generally helps out; if a position becomes available, it'll be offered. I'd be reluctant to say any more, being a newbie clerk myself—you might wish to get in touch with User:Thatcher or User:David.Mestel (Cbrowne is away on holiday) for more information. Lastly, Mediation is the process, whereby parties in a dispute take their dispute (usually over the content of an article) to a Mediator, who then gets them to do discuss their dispute, and get a compromise reached. That's a highly unsophisticated answer, and one that doesn't do mediation justice, but I'd be here all night if I gave the reply in as deep detail as I want to :) AGK § 13:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and congratulations on your promotion to Clerk. Microchip 08 09:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Yes & Yes. So is mediation simply being a "middle man" between two warring/disputing parties? Microchip 08 09:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Before I offer a reply, have you read the material I linked? AGK § 21:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just bumping this so that it isn't achived. Please ignore. Microchip 08 19:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Great, thankyou. And happy Easter. Microchip 08 16:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)