Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Monarchy of Canada |
Status | closed |
Request date | 03:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved | G2bambino ( talk · contribs) PrinceOfCanada ( talk · contribs) |
Mediator(s) | Mayalld ( talk · contribs) |
Comment | Some agreement, but not total |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Monarchy of Canada]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Monarchy of Canada]]
The present situation comes at the end of lengthy discussions about the formatting and placement of images at the articles Monarchy of Canada and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Though an outside party eventually discovered guidelines that helped in directing the correct way to place images in an article, one of the parties in this dispute continues to have problems with where images are put, regardless of their placement being as per guidelines. Personal issues are now hindering any communication on the matter.
Previous discussion has taken place at:
The concerns of both parties should be taken into consideration in bringing about an agreeable resolution, which requires the cooperation of everyone. A mediator may be required to convince one party to continue to participate in discussion.
Opening case...
As things stand, this clearly isn't going to work out. I said at the start that what was needed was to take the issues one at a time, and resolve them. To that end, I asked that we restrict ourselves to the first issue (image placement) in isolation. Unless both of you can agree to the following ground rules, this process is going to be a monumental waste of time for all three of us;
It may be a slow process, as we have to wait for each other to make contributions, but it is, I believe necessary to work this way.
The following cannot be a part of a mediation process
I must ask you both to trust that I'm smart enough to spot if somebody is attempting to pull a fast one here, and that attempting to "win" the argument isn't going to work with me.
If you want to continue, can you both sign below (signature only please, without any other comment) Mayalld ( talk) 21:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I am unavailable to take this further until 20:00 UTC on 21st September. Sorry for the delay... Mayalld ( talk) 14:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This appears unlikely to progress further in this forum. Remaining points of disagreement listed back at the article for wider input, and case closed
Whilst the impression that I get is that both of you are working damned hard to thrash this out within the straightjacket of the "rules" that I put in, we're none of us perfect! As such, if either of you feels that the other broke the "rules", can you leave a message on the case talkpage (rather than on the case page). I propose to deal with any infractions by deleting them. Mayalld ( talk) 21:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
As this is an ongoing mediation, can I suggest that you both need to disengage from the disputed articles for the duration. At present, we are part way through putting together a way forward. Using this incomplete agreement in ongoing disputes before you are both 100% signed up to it is not likely to lead to an early resolution. Mayalld ( talk) 15:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I also feel that we need to try and draw this bit to a close within the next 24 hours. There are clearly still areas where you aren't in agreement, but there are compromise solutions which will lead to a page appearance that, whilst not exactly what each of you would like, is a damn site closer to it than the version that the other wanted at the start. Mayalld ( talk) 15:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
One notices that you carefully avoid noting why personal issues are hindering communication, G2. Perhaps you should expand on that. Perhaps you should, in the interests of honesty, detail your lies about me, your accusation of vandalism, your characterization of my edits as (variously) 'hideous' and 'looking like shit', your hypocrisy (which is really the root of the issue here), your utter avoidance of taking responsibility for the situation, your rude edit summaries, your severe incivility, your editing of my comments (which you know is not okay, because you've been blocked for editing someone else's comments before)... shall I go on?
I have made quite clear the circumstances under which I will attempt resolution with G2bambino:
If he does those things--that is, without sarcasm, without weasel words, without any avoidance whatsoever--I will be happy to seek a resolution. Prince of Canada t | c 11:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Certainly. As everything up to the point where User:Jao presented links to guidelines on image placement has, I think, been resolved, the matter now comes down to how images are placed even in conformity with the guidelines. What User:PrinceOfCanada (PoC) does is within guidelines, though what I also do is within guidelines. The problem arises, as I see it, when PoC's edits cause bunching and unsightly white space, which is discouraged. Regard, PoC's version of Monarchy of Barbados:
versus my version:
Note that it is his placement of the image on the right-hand side that causes bunching with the infobox, and pushes the text far down the page, whereas mine does not. This is just one example of the same problem being caused at the other pages.
What is most aggravating is that PoC will not say exactly what is wrong with putting the image on the left. He earlier put up this screenshot:
However, he refuses to say what's wrong with it, except that it "looks awful." What exactly makes it "look awful" is still a mystery. One wonders if it is the compression of the text between the two images, caused by a small screen size, but this remains to be confirmed, and, if it is indeed the cause of PoC's concern, actually seems to be less discouraged than whitespace is; in fact, it would seem that floating text is perfectly acceptable (though it may cause a disadvantage to those with low screen resolutions or small screens), whereas white space is not. -- G2bambino ( talk) 16:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Putting up a diff is pointless, as the issue is how pages render on different computers. You can see a screenshot here that shows how his edits render on some computers. The very basic problem is this: G2bambino seems to believe that doing layout and formatting so that everything looks perfect on his computer is fine. This is despite telling me, quote, "you do realise that it doesn't look the same on every computer, right? It all depends on the size of your screen," and reverting some similarly cosmetic edits I had made with the summary "It's poor formatting."
And yet, for some reason, it's not poor formatting when he does it. One has to wonder why.
Oh, and to forestall the inevitable.. I don't care that he reverted an edit I made in July. I learned from it. The issue is that he appears to feel--as you will see from reading the initial discussion--that as long as it displays fine on his screen, well that's just dandy. Quite deliberately ignoring what he himself said to me. Indeed, multiple requests for him to acknowledge he had said that have been met with silence. Again, one must wonder why.
One should also note that once he was thwarted in one way (due to the intervention of Jao with some pertinent MOS policies), he then went on to deliberately move images around in order to still get what he wanted, in one case showing incredibly poor faith with the edit summary 'better move this down!', when the image had already been correctly placed.
I also hope you have the patience of a saint. His standard tactic--as you can see from the links he provided--is to ignore direct questions, seize on irrelevant pedantries, and generally browbeat until one gives up. You can see the exact same tactics here and here, for two of the more recent examples.
So.. you're welcome to dig around and so on. But until he acknowledges the very basic fact that he is doing what he himself told me doesn't work, and indeed actually responds to direct questions, which is something I have only managed to get him to do once, this whole exercise is pointless. Cheers. Prince of Canada t | c 14:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
To add a final point of clarity, the only aim I have had in this whole mess is to ensure that pages display as uniformly as possible within the limitations we have when it comes to controlling the code of each article page. This means: ensuring that images always and only display within their relevant sections (per MOS), without impinging on the formatting of following sections. That this creates G2bambino's despised whitespace on some computers at some resolutions and at some screenwidths is regrettable, yes, but unavoidable due to his own statement that "it all depends on the size of your screen." My edits have done nothing but ensure the aim of having pages display as uniformly as possible. His edits are layouts that are idiosyncratic to his computer only. If whitespace is so severe an issue, I recommend that he download Firefox and Greasemonkey, and program the latter to display WP pages in whatever way pleases him most.
I should add that DoubleBlue, who arrived at the Monarchy of Canada page due to G2's placement of the image cleanup tag, is in agreement with my aims. Prince of Canada t | c 14:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
'Unsightly' is good enough for you to use as a justification, G2. But I guess doing as you do isn't allowed. You ever going to acknowledge what you said on the OoC page? Or are you just going to go on pretending it never happened, because it thoroughly undermines your position? Prince of Canada t | c 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll keep this brief for now, and put some more detailed MoS stuff up a bit later. The dispute is esentially around how we deal with situations where there are a lot of pictures to fit in. My first thoughts are;
Could I invite you each to comment on my points above, without commenting on each other (or on the other's response), and keeping your reponse short and to the point (no longer than my passage above!) Mayalld ( talk) 07:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you both for (mostly) sticking to the issues, and not commenting on the other person!
Secondly, I think we should accept a couple of fundamental points here which may make a solution easier;
Thirdly, we should move on to General principles of image placement;
So, based on those principles, I would put forward the following as a rule of thumb to decide on image placement;
A one line summary of the above is that we avoid white space where we can, but that compared to image stacking into the next section, it is the lesser of two evils.
At this point, could I invite you both to review the above points, and submit a single response each detailing ONLY those points above that you have a problem with, restricting yourself to a single sentence per disputed point (and, naturally, commenting only on the point, rather than the other party, or how they will misuse or misinterpret the point!) Mayalld ( talk) 15:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
4) Placement to the left, unless {{ clear}} is used, can cause the unsightly overlap into the next section and mung the formatting of the next section; also causes text to be squished between left- and right-aligned images if the next section if the next section has an image. 8) No, not always. See my point above. Prince of Canada t | c 20:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Usual rules! Mayalld ( talk) 21:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, so the main point of contention is whether Whitespace or images spanning sections is bad.
WP:PIC does depracate white space in articles, but it depracates it as the solution of last resort to image stacking.
In other words (by my reading), image stacking is worse than white space.
We do need to remember that {{ clear}} doesn't automatically cause white space. It only causes it where there would have been a problem with stacking.
I would like to put forward a compromise;
Using this compromise, let us look at the Monarchy of Barbados article that G2 gave us screen shots of.
Thoughts (do I have to say "usual rules") Mayalld ( talk) 07:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It is clear that both of you have genuine and strongly felt positions here. It is equally clear that there is no way of editing that will give each of you exactly what you want.
Set against that, we have the fact that you both self-evidently wish to improve Wikipedia (and whilst, from entrenched positions you may not wish to admit it, you both know that the other party is here to improve Wikipedia).
It is clear to me that an ongoing battle between you is doing nothing to improve Wikipedia.
So, it comes down to this...
Progress requires that you both accept a solution that is not 100% of what you want, but is probably 80% of it. A solution that gives both of you 80% of what you want has got to be better for Wikipedia than a solution that gives one party 100% and the other nothing.
As I see it, the issues that have to be reconciled are;
There isn't a magical solution here, but there is a series of steps that we can take that will mean that, for the most part, both of you will be left with a layout that you like better than the layout that the other would have tried for before this mediation.
So, I am now putting the following to you both, modified from the original.
In this compromise, you are both having to give ground.
I am now inviting both of you to accept this compromise, as the only practical way forward, so that we can move on and address the interpersonal issues. Mayalld ( talk) 06:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
We have reached an apparent stalemate, which is most unfortunate.
Both of you are seeking to optimise display, but unfortunately, you are seeking to do so on very different displays.
G2, you say that you are unwilling to depart from guidelines here. Could I refer you to Wikipedia:Layout#Images, which is explicit that images flowing into the next section on a 1024x768 screen IS a problem. Could you reconsider your objections on that basis.
PoC, based on this same guideline, I must ask you to accept that if, on a 1024x768 screen, the infobox is going to encroach, we go for left aligned images to avoid the image detatching from the text.
Basically, you both need to accept that there is no layout that will look perfect on every resolution.
A layout that looks fine on a low resolution screen will look dreadful, with excessive white space and images detatched from text on a very high res screen.
A layout that has pictures crossing sections to get rid of whitespace on very high resolution monitors will result in a horrible cluttered screen on very low res monitors.
Unless we can move to an agreement here, I'm very much afraid that we will have to chalk this one up as a failed mediation. Mayalld ( talk) 21:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
We are, I hope, pretty much there with an agreement on a compromise regarding image placement. In the interests of trying to get all the issues sorted as quickly as possible, I'm going to open up the second area, although it is not my intention that we actually start discussing it until we have finalised the first issue.
One of the reasons for delaying this issue (apart from the fact that concentrating on one issue at once allows us to focus better) is that I've been having a really good think about how we deal with this is the most constructive way possible.
I have to say that we have already come a huge way down the road, from the situation when we started. We started off this mediation with a lot of deep rooted suspicion, resentment, and wariness about the other parties motives all around, and we were talking more about each other's faults that the problem at hand. With efforts on both sides to stick to some ground rules, we have ended up with a much more civilised discussion.
Please don't imagine that I'm a saint. If you look around for the way I contribute to discussion (on and off wiki, I'm not hard to find), you will note that I'm not averse to arguments, and forceful arguments. I do, however, claim that I would happily buy a beer for any of my adversaries, because we can disagree with mutual respect.
I could simply say " WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL" and leave it at that. Indeed, those two documents ought to contain sufficient guidelines that following them meticulously would put an end to the conflict, but I think it would be good all round to elaborate a little.
I should say at this point that what I am proposing here is slightly radical, and may take you both somewhat aback....
I don't intend to ask either of you to recite the "crimes" of the other, and I don't intend to go through the wrongs (real or perceived) one by one. That, in my view, is not the spirit in which we build a new accomodation.
I note from your user pages that you are both Canadian Monarchists. Well, that means that we all share a Queen (I'm British), and at the very grave risk of bringing religion into this, I'm suggesting that we approach our "sins" in the same way as the church that she heads does. We don't need to talk about them in detail, as long as we recognise in ourselves what they are!
What we need here is a clean sheet. We draw a line under any prior acrimony (without any considerations of "he was far worse than I was"), and resolve that we go forward respecting the opinions of the other, even when we don't agree.
I would like to propose acceptance of the following points by both of you;
I'm going to comment now, as I don't have anything else to say on the matter. I accept everything you have written above, and agree to your suggestions on how to handle future disagreements.
G2bambino, please accept this in the honest spirit in which it is intended: I am sorry for anything I have said to you that has caused you distress or offence. Let's move on, shall we? Prince of Canada t | c 22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Monarchy of Canada |
Status | closed |
Request date | 03:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved | G2bambino ( talk · contribs) PrinceOfCanada ( talk · contribs) |
Mediator(s) | Mayalld ( talk · contribs) |
Comment | Some agreement, but not total |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Monarchy of Canada]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Monarchy of Canada]]
The present situation comes at the end of lengthy discussions about the formatting and placement of images at the articles Monarchy of Canada and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Though an outside party eventually discovered guidelines that helped in directing the correct way to place images in an article, one of the parties in this dispute continues to have problems with where images are put, regardless of their placement being as per guidelines. Personal issues are now hindering any communication on the matter.
Previous discussion has taken place at:
The concerns of both parties should be taken into consideration in bringing about an agreeable resolution, which requires the cooperation of everyone. A mediator may be required to convince one party to continue to participate in discussion.
Opening case...
As things stand, this clearly isn't going to work out. I said at the start that what was needed was to take the issues one at a time, and resolve them. To that end, I asked that we restrict ourselves to the first issue (image placement) in isolation. Unless both of you can agree to the following ground rules, this process is going to be a monumental waste of time for all three of us;
It may be a slow process, as we have to wait for each other to make contributions, but it is, I believe necessary to work this way.
The following cannot be a part of a mediation process
I must ask you both to trust that I'm smart enough to spot if somebody is attempting to pull a fast one here, and that attempting to "win" the argument isn't going to work with me.
If you want to continue, can you both sign below (signature only please, without any other comment) Mayalld ( talk) 21:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I am unavailable to take this further until 20:00 UTC on 21st September. Sorry for the delay... Mayalld ( talk) 14:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This appears unlikely to progress further in this forum. Remaining points of disagreement listed back at the article for wider input, and case closed
Whilst the impression that I get is that both of you are working damned hard to thrash this out within the straightjacket of the "rules" that I put in, we're none of us perfect! As such, if either of you feels that the other broke the "rules", can you leave a message on the case talkpage (rather than on the case page). I propose to deal with any infractions by deleting them. Mayalld ( talk) 21:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
As this is an ongoing mediation, can I suggest that you both need to disengage from the disputed articles for the duration. At present, we are part way through putting together a way forward. Using this incomplete agreement in ongoing disputes before you are both 100% signed up to it is not likely to lead to an early resolution. Mayalld ( talk) 15:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I also feel that we need to try and draw this bit to a close within the next 24 hours. There are clearly still areas where you aren't in agreement, but there are compromise solutions which will lead to a page appearance that, whilst not exactly what each of you would like, is a damn site closer to it than the version that the other wanted at the start. Mayalld ( talk) 15:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
One notices that you carefully avoid noting why personal issues are hindering communication, G2. Perhaps you should expand on that. Perhaps you should, in the interests of honesty, detail your lies about me, your accusation of vandalism, your characterization of my edits as (variously) 'hideous' and 'looking like shit', your hypocrisy (which is really the root of the issue here), your utter avoidance of taking responsibility for the situation, your rude edit summaries, your severe incivility, your editing of my comments (which you know is not okay, because you've been blocked for editing someone else's comments before)... shall I go on?
I have made quite clear the circumstances under which I will attempt resolution with G2bambino:
If he does those things--that is, without sarcasm, without weasel words, without any avoidance whatsoever--I will be happy to seek a resolution. Prince of Canada t | c 11:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Certainly. As everything up to the point where User:Jao presented links to guidelines on image placement has, I think, been resolved, the matter now comes down to how images are placed even in conformity with the guidelines. What User:PrinceOfCanada (PoC) does is within guidelines, though what I also do is within guidelines. The problem arises, as I see it, when PoC's edits cause bunching and unsightly white space, which is discouraged. Regard, PoC's version of Monarchy of Barbados:
versus my version:
Note that it is his placement of the image on the right-hand side that causes bunching with the infobox, and pushes the text far down the page, whereas mine does not. This is just one example of the same problem being caused at the other pages.
What is most aggravating is that PoC will not say exactly what is wrong with putting the image on the left. He earlier put up this screenshot:
However, he refuses to say what's wrong with it, except that it "looks awful." What exactly makes it "look awful" is still a mystery. One wonders if it is the compression of the text between the two images, caused by a small screen size, but this remains to be confirmed, and, if it is indeed the cause of PoC's concern, actually seems to be less discouraged than whitespace is; in fact, it would seem that floating text is perfectly acceptable (though it may cause a disadvantage to those with low screen resolutions or small screens), whereas white space is not. -- G2bambino ( talk) 16:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Putting up a diff is pointless, as the issue is how pages render on different computers. You can see a screenshot here that shows how his edits render on some computers. The very basic problem is this: G2bambino seems to believe that doing layout and formatting so that everything looks perfect on his computer is fine. This is despite telling me, quote, "you do realise that it doesn't look the same on every computer, right? It all depends on the size of your screen," and reverting some similarly cosmetic edits I had made with the summary "It's poor formatting."
And yet, for some reason, it's not poor formatting when he does it. One has to wonder why.
Oh, and to forestall the inevitable.. I don't care that he reverted an edit I made in July. I learned from it. The issue is that he appears to feel--as you will see from reading the initial discussion--that as long as it displays fine on his screen, well that's just dandy. Quite deliberately ignoring what he himself said to me. Indeed, multiple requests for him to acknowledge he had said that have been met with silence. Again, one must wonder why.
One should also note that once he was thwarted in one way (due to the intervention of Jao with some pertinent MOS policies), he then went on to deliberately move images around in order to still get what he wanted, in one case showing incredibly poor faith with the edit summary 'better move this down!', when the image had already been correctly placed.
I also hope you have the patience of a saint. His standard tactic--as you can see from the links he provided--is to ignore direct questions, seize on irrelevant pedantries, and generally browbeat until one gives up. You can see the exact same tactics here and here, for two of the more recent examples.
So.. you're welcome to dig around and so on. But until he acknowledges the very basic fact that he is doing what he himself told me doesn't work, and indeed actually responds to direct questions, which is something I have only managed to get him to do once, this whole exercise is pointless. Cheers. Prince of Canada t | c 14:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
To add a final point of clarity, the only aim I have had in this whole mess is to ensure that pages display as uniformly as possible within the limitations we have when it comes to controlling the code of each article page. This means: ensuring that images always and only display within their relevant sections (per MOS), without impinging on the formatting of following sections. That this creates G2bambino's despised whitespace on some computers at some resolutions and at some screenwidths is regrettable, yes, but unavoidable due to his own statement that "it all depends on the size of your screen." My edits have done nothing but ensure the aim of having pages display as uniformly as possible. His edits are layouts that are idiosyncratic to his computer only. If whitespace is so severe an issue, I recommend that he download Firefox and Greasemonkey, and program the latter to display WP pages in whatever way pleases him most.
I should add that DoubleBlue, who arrived at the Monarchy of Canada page due to G2's placement of the image cleanup tag, is in agreement with my aims. Prince of Canada t | c 14:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
'Unsightly' is good enough for you to use as a justification, G2. But I guess doing as you do isn't allowed. You ever going to acknowledge what you said on the OoC page? Or are you just going to go on pretending it never happened, because it thoroughly undermines your position? Prince of Canada t | c 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll keep this brief for now, and put some more detailed MoS stuff up a bit later. The dispute is esentially around how we deal with situations where there are a lot of pictures to fit in. My first thoughts are;
Could I invite you each to comment on my points above, without commenting on each other (or on the other's response), and keeping your reponse short and to the point (no longer than my passage above!) Mayalld ( talk) 07:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you both for (mostly) sticking to the issues, and not commenting on the other person!
Secondly, I think we should accept a couple of fundamental points here which may make a solution easier;
Thirdly, we should move on to General principles of image placement;
So, based on those principles, I would put forward the following as a rule of thumb to decide on image placement;
A one line summary of the above is that we avoid white space where we can, but that compared to image stacking into the next section, it is the lesser of two evils.
At this point, could I invite you both to review the above points, and submit a single response each detailing ONLY those points above that you have a problem with, restricting yourself to a single sentence per disputed point (and, naturally, commenting only on the point, rather than the other party, or how they will misuse or misinterpret the point!) Mayalld ( talk) 15:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
4) Placement to the left, unless {{ clear}} is used, can cause the unsightly overlap into the next section and mung the formatting of the next section; also causes text to be squished between left- and right-aligned images if the next section if the next section has an image. 8) No, not always. See my point above. Prince of Canada t | c 20:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Usual rules! Mayalld ( talk) 21:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, so the main point of contention is whether Whitespace or images spanning sections is bad.
WP:PIC does depracate white space in articles, but it depracates it as the solution of last resort to image stacking.
In other words (by my reading), image stacking is worse than white space.
We do need to remember that {{ clear}} doesn't automatically cause white space. It only causes it where there would have been a problem with stacking.
I would like to put forward a compromise;
Using this compromise, let us look at the Monarchy of Barbados article that G2 gave us screen shots of.
Thoughts (do I have to say "usual rules") Mayalld ( talk) 07:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It is clear that both of you have genuine and strongly felt positions here. It is equally clear that there is no way of editing that will give each of you exactly what you want.
Set against that, we have the fact that you both self-evidently wish to improve Wikipedia (and whilst, from entrenched positions you may not wish to admit it, you both know that the other party is here to improve Wikipedia).
It is clear to me that an ongoing battle between you is doing nothing to improve Wikipedia.
So, it comes down to this...
Progress requires that you both accept a solution that is not 100% of what you want, but is probably 80% of it. A solution that gives both of you 80% of what you want has got to be better for Wikipedia than a solution that gives one party 100% and the other nothing.
As I see it, the issues that have to be reconciled are;
There isn't a magical solution here, but there is a series of steps that we can take that will mean that, for the most part, both of you will be left with a layout that you like better than the layout that the other would have tried for before this mediation.
So, I am now putting the following to you both, modified from the original.
In this compromise, you are both having to give ground.
I am now inviting both of you to accept this compromise, as the only practical way forward, so that we can move on and address the interpersonal issues. Mayalld ( talk) 06:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
We have reached an apparent stalemate, which is most unfortunate.
Both of you are seeking to optimise display, but unfortunately, you are seeking to do so on very different displays.
G2, you say that you are unwilling to depart from guidelines here. Could I refer you to Wikipedia:Layout#Images, which is explicit that images flowing into the next section on a 1024x768 screen IS a problem. Could you reconsider your objections on that basis.
PoC, based on this same guideline, I must ask you to accept that if, on a 1024x768 screen, the infobox is going to encroach, we go for left aligned images to avoid the image detatching from the text.
Basically, you both need to accept that there is no layout that will look perfect on every resolution.
A layout that looks fine on a low resolution screen will look dreadful, with excessive white space and images detatched from text on a very high res screen.
A layout that has pictures crossing sections to get rid of whitespace on very high resolution monitors will result in a horrible cluttered screen on very low res monitors.
Unless we can move to an agreement here, I'm very much afraid that we will have to chalk this one up as a failed mediation. Mayalld ( talk) 21:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
We are, I hope, pretty much there with an agreement on a compromise regarding image placement. In the interests of trying to get all the issues sorted as quickly as possible, I'm going to open up the second area, although it is not my intention that we actually start discussing it until we have finalised the first issue.
One of the reasons for delaying this issue (apart from the fact that concentrating on one issue at once allows us to focus better) is that I've been having a really good think about how we deal with this is the most constructive way possible.
I have to say that we have already come a huge way down the road, from the situation when we started. We started off this mediation with a lot of deep rooted suspicion, resentment, and wariness about the other parties motives all around, and we were talking more about each other's faults that the problem at hand. With efforts on both sides to stick to some ground rules, we have ended up with a much more civilised discussion.
Please don't imagine that I'm a saint. If you look around for the way I contribute to discussion (on and off wiki, I'm not hard to find), you will note that I'm not averse to arguments, and forceful arguments. I do, however, claim that I would happily buy a beer for any of my adversaries, because we can disagree with mutual respect.
I could simply say " WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL" and leave it at that. Indeed, those two documents ought to contain sufficient guidelines that following them meticulously would put an end to the conflict, but I think it would be good all round to elaborate a little.
I should say at this point that what I am proposing here is slightly radical, and may take you both somewhat aback....
I don't intend to ask either of you to recite the "crimes" of the other, and I don't intend to go through the wrongs (real or perceived) one by one. That, in my view, is not the spirit in which we build a new accomodation.
I note from your user pages that you are both Canadian Monarchists. Well, that means that we all share a Queen (I'm British), and at the very grave risk of bringing religion into this, I'm suggesting that we approach our "sins" in the same way as the church that she heads does. We don't need to talk about them in detail, as long as we recognise in ourselves what they are!
What we need here is a clean sheet. We draw a line under any prior acrimony (without any considerations of "he was far worse than I was"), and resolve that we go forward respecting the opinions of the other, even when we don't agree.
I would like to propose acceptance of the following points by both of you;
I'm going to comment now, as I don't have anything else to say on the matter. I accept everything you have written above, and agree to your suggestions on how to handle future disagreements.
G2bambino, please accept this in the honest spirit in which it is intended: I am sorry for anything I have said to you that has caused you distress or offence. Let's move on, shall we? Prince of Canada t | c 22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)