| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Dilation and curettage |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Ti dave |
| Parties involved | Joie de Vivre |
| Mediator(s) | Snowolf |
| Comment | The parts cannot come to a compromise. One part has made concessions, but the other is stuck at his/her positions. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Dilation and curettage]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Dilation and curettage]]
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Request Information
- Request made by: Ti dave 19:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Dilation and currettage's history
User_talk:Joie_de_Vivre#Abortion_articles
- Who's involved?
- Joie de Vivre & Ti dave
- What's going on?
- The long-standing link to instructions for the procedure has been removed from article by User:Joie de Vivre.
As the author of the formerly linked article, I feel there would be a conflict of interest if I reverted the edit, but I believe the link was wholly germane to the topic and within Wikipedia External Linking guidelines.
- What would you like to change about that?
- I would like the link to the tutorial to be restored, without instigating an Edit War.
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- I am willing to discuss this openly, but as a new User, I am not totally familiar with the mechanics of Wikipedia. I may be contacted at the e-mail address from my User page.
Mediator response
I have regretfully to close the case, as mediation is an informal, non mandatory process and one of the parts has made concessions, but the other no, and he/she's stuck at his initial position. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 09:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
- If the parties don't agree on allowing the link we're debating on, then I can propose that we link the US Army Special Forces Medical Handbook, ST 31-91B, 1 March 1982 - part 2 - page 17, freely available on the Federation of American Scientists. Happy editing everybody, Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 00:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that linking to the FAS material, in lieu of the Kuro5hin.org story, would exclude the discussion in the story and the pertinent information is inconveniently buried within the PDF file hosted at FAS. Also, the objection [1] listed by Joie de Vivre was that the material was "DIY", which might not be placated by linking to the original source material.
- I have since read the WP:SPS policy stated at
[2], and although the article received editorial oversight at kuro5hin.org, I concede that an External Link to the FAS file would be more consistent with WP:SPS policy, as it's the original source material.
Ti dave 07:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Army's manual is a reliable secondary source, not a primary one. It summarize what has been already written on the subject.
Snowolf
(talk)
CON
COI - 12:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not to be argumentative, but as the Army Manual was written by a staff of qualified medical personnel from the Army Medical Command (as noted in the manual), I believe it qualifies as a primary source. Ti dave 16:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Army's manual is a reliable secondary source, not a primary one. It summarize what has been already written on the subject.
Snowolf
(talk)
CON
COI - 12:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
I wasn't aware of this request for mediation until I checked User:Ti dave's edit history. I would like to shed some light on the sequence of events. It's my opinion that this request for mediation is overkill.
1) Ti dave asks a question on my talk page about the Dilation and curettage article, requesting that I personally contact them by email with my answer.
2) I reply that I don't generally make contact by email, and answer Ti dave's question.
3) Ti dave responds rudely, suggesting that I "unclench and revert" my edit.
4) I respond that I didn't appreciate Ti dave's tone, and requested that Ti dave take the discussion to the article's Talk page.
5) Ti dave creates this request for mediation.
6) Ti dave responds on my talk page without informing me of the request they made for mediation.
I hope this clarifies the situation for whoever takes this case. -- Joie de Vivre 22:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've already took the case, Joie de Vivre ;-).
- I haven't told you about the fact that I've came to the article's talk page because I took this mediation because this isn't a RfM, but an informal mediation.
- Also, apart from thanking you for your clarifications (I've already read your talk page for it), I'd like, if possible, to discuss the whole thing on the article's talk page, rather than this one. It's customary to do in this way. So, I'll answer you there, if you don't mind. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just a note, before we get started on this point. In spite of Joie's mistaken edit of my Talk page, I have no prior affiliation with User:Snowolf. Ti dave 23:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Article | Dilation and curettage |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Ti dave |
| Parties involved | Joie de Vivre |
| Mediator(s) | Snowolf |
| Comment | The parts cannot come to a compromise. One part has made concessions, but the other is stuck at his/her positions. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Dilation and curettage]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Dilation and curettage]]
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Request Information
- Request made by: Ti dave 19:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Dilation and currettage's history
User_talk:Joie_de_Vivre#Abortion_articles
- Who's involved?
- Joie de Vivre & Ti dave
- What's going on?
- The long-standing link to instructions for the procedure has been removed from article by User:Joie de Vivre.
As the author of the formerly linked article, I feel there would be a conflict of interest if I reverted the edit, but I believe the link was wholly germane to the topic and within Wikipedia External Linking guidelines.
- What would you like to change about that?
- I would like the link to the tutorial to be restored, without instigating an Edit War.
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- I am willing to discuss this openly, but as a new User, I am not totally familiar with the mechanics of Wikipedia. I may be contacted at the e-mail address from my User page.
Mediator response
I have regretfully to close the case, as mediation is an informal, non mandatory process and one of the parts has made concessions, but the other no, and he/she's stuck at his initial position. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 09:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
- If the parties don't agree on allowing the link we're debating on, then I can propose that we link the US Army Special Forces Medical Handbook, ST 31-91B, 1 March 1982 - part 2 - page 17, freely available on the Federation of American Scientists. Happy editing everybody, Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 00:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that linking to the FAS material, in lieu of the Kuro5hin.org story, would exclude the discussion in the story and the pertinent information is inconveniently buried within the PDF file hosted at FAS. Also, the objection [1] listed by Joie de Vivre was that the material was "DIY", which might not be placated by linking to the original source material.
- I have since read the WP:SPS policy stated at
[2], and although the article received editorial oversight at kuro5hin.org, I concede that an External Link to the FAS file would be more consistent with WP:SPS policy, as it's the original source material.
Ti dave 07:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Army's manual is a reliable secondary source, not a primary one. It summarize what has been already written on the subject.
Snowolf
(talk)
CON
COI - 12:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not to be argumentative, but as the Army Manual was written by a staff of qualified medical personnel from the Army Medical Command (as noted in the manual), I believe it qualifies as a primary source. Ti dave 16:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Army's manual is a reliable secondary source, not a primary one. It summarize what has been already written on the subject.
Snowolf
(talk)
CON
COI - 12:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
I wasn't aware of this request for mediation until I checked User:Ti dave's edit history. I would like to shed some light on the sequence of events. It's my opinion that this request for mediation is overkill.
1) Ti dave asks a question on my talk page about the Dilation and curettage article, requesting that I personally contact them by email with my answer.
2) I reply that I don't generally make contact by email, and answer Ti dave's question.
3) Ti dave responds rudely, suggesting that I "unclench and revert" my edit.
4) I respond that I didn't appreciate Ti dave's tone, and requested that Ti dave take the discussion to the article's Talk page.
5) Ti dave creates this request for mediation.
6) Ti dave responds on my talk page without informing me of the request they made for mediation.
I hope this clarifies the situation for whoever takes this case. -- Joie de Vivre 22:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've already took the case, Joie de Vivre ;-).
- I haven't told you about the fact that I've came to the article's talk page because I took this mediation because this isn't a RfM, but an informal mediation.
- Also, apart from thanking you for your clarifications (I've already read your talk page for it), I'd like, if possible, to discuss the whole thing on the article's talk page, rather than this one. It's customary to do in this way. So, I'll answer you there, if you don't mind. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just a note, before we get started on this point. In spite of Joie's mistaken edit of my Talk page, I have no prior affiliation with User:Snowolf. Ti dave 23:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)