Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
Personal Attacks by Rjensen against user:Citizenposse have been made regarding History of the United States Republican Party and Republic of New Hampshire in accusing Citizenposse of being a radical right wing group or militia member. Citizenposse asserts he has never belonged to any right wing groups or militia groups in his life. He regards these accusations as a violation of the WP:NPA rule. Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Article Talk Pages Talk:History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party: Rjensen slanders Citizenposse in the comments of the article history page of History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Articles for Deletion: Republic of New Hampshire [ [10]]: Where Rjensen makes first personal attack against Citizenposse. Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Three Reversion Limit Rule violated by Rjensen Rjensen has now violated the rule against more than three reversions of a page in reverting History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party four times in one day. Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen's own [[Talk:User:Rjensen|talk page]]
Citizenposse has attempted discussion, regarding both History of the United States Republican Party and Republic of New Hampshire, but Rjensen gets more belligerent and has gone and violated the revert rule. Rjensen seems to believe his version of history is the orthodox one and refuses to examine and fairly consider all the references Citizenposse has brought forth, on either topic. Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen is furthermore attempting to suppress real history through deletion of the Republic of New Hampshire page, instigating his RfD shortly after Citizenposse started editing the page, and repeatedly reverts the edited History of the United States Republican Party, specifically deleting references to the true founding of the party in Exeter, NH on October 12, 1853. Citizenposse has provided ample and diverse references to support the claim, and has put in a request to the New Hampshire Historical Society for further scholarly references. They have said they will be responding on Monday. Citizenposse therefore requests mediation on these issues and that Rjensen's reversions be reversed, and that he halt further reversions until mediation is concluded. Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I have also found that Rjensen has attempted to vandalize the article on Amos Tuck, founder of the Republican Party with unsupported allegations and unreferenced conclusions. Citizenposse 22:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
In addition, Rjensen has used HIS OWN RESEARCH as references for his edits of articles on the Republican Party. Isn't that a violation of the NOR rule? Citizenposse 22:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen has established a history of suppressing history, particularly on his own "conservative-NET" email list, in several instances: One Exchange Citizenposse 22:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Reject. A) Parties don't agree to mediate, B) Not a mediation case.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
This stems from a broader discussion on the John Brignell page which has transferred to the Relative Risk page. There has been extensive discussion of this matter on both talk pages by all sides. Mediation Cabal was attempted for the Brignell page but fell through when the mediator was unable to give the matter his full attention. That page was put to Arbitration but rejected. It will be put to Mediation at a latter date. This particular issue clearly cannot be solved by consensus; it needs the intervention of a third party; hence mediation.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
Principal parties:
To a lesser extent - I request that the requirement of these parties to consent to mediation be deemed optional as they are not actively part of the current dispute, though they have been previously involved and have been notified of RFM:
Possibly valid parties - The following people have no other WP history and may not be familiar with the process or want to be seriously invovled; I did not notify them of RFM:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
An anon user is harrasing me and making personal attacks on me. In addition, this user makes many reverts. I don't know who this is and so cannot give contact info on this person. See Talk page for Reactive Attachment Disorder and Attachment Disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attachment_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reactive_attachment_disorder#Mercer
I have tried to state where I got my information and be concilliatory.
Issue 1: Stop the personal attacks on me and saying that I am defaming and should be banned. Issue 2: Stop reverting my edits Issue 3: Mutual agreement to respect alternative points of view.
None
I received a message saying that I should contact this part of the web site, but I'm not sure what's required of me. I have added comments and signed them; I haven't deleted or otherwise altered ayone's material, nor have I made any personal remarks, although some have been made about me. I have been told that a statement I made about EBT status was deleted at one point and replaced by someone else.
For the record, I am female; my mother thought it was cute to name me after my father; I changed my spelling legally at the same time I was divorced and resumed my maiden name, and I did so in an apparently fruitless effort to avoid exactly this kind of misunderstanding. Dr. Becker-Weidman was informed of this fact some months ago, and in fact had to edit a letter to a journal with respect to this point before publication was permitted.
What there is to be mediated on my side escapes me, but no doubt such a process would be entertaining, so I certainly agree. Jean Mercer
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
Personal Attacks by Rjensen against user:Citizenposse have been made regarding History of the United States Republican Party and Republic of New Hampshire in accusing Citizenposse of being a radical right wing group or militia member. Citizenposse asserts he has never belonged to any right wing groups or militia groups in his life. He regards these accusations as a violation of the WP:NPA rule. Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Article Talk Pages Talk:History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party: Rjensen slanders Citizenposse in the comments of the article history page of History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Articles for Deletion: Republic of New Hampshire [ [10]]: Where Rjensen makes first personal attack against Citizenposse. Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Three Reversion Limit Rule violated by Rjensen Rjensen has now violated the rule against more than three reversions of a page in reverting History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party four times in one day. Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen's own [[Talk:User:Rjensen|talk page]]
Citizenposse has attempted discussion, regarding both History of the United States Republican Party and Republic of New Hampshire, but Rjensen gets more belligerent and has gone and violated the revert rule. Rjensen seems to believe his version of history is the orthodox one and refuses to examine and fairly consider all the references Citizenposse has brought forth, on either topic. Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen is furthermore attempting to suppress real history through deletion of the Republic of New Hampshire page, instigating his RfD shortly after Citizenposse started editing the page, and repeatedly reverts the edited History of the United States Republican Party, specifically deleting references to the true founding of the party in Exeter, NH on October 12, 1853. Citizenposse has provided ample and diverse references to support the claim, and has put in a request to the New Hampshire Historical Society for further scholarly references. They have said they will be responding on Monday. Citizenposse therefore requests mediation on these issues and that Rjensen's reversions be reversed, and that he halt further reversions until mediation is concluded. Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I have also found that Rjensen has attempted to vandalize the article on Amos Tuck, founder of the Republican Party with unsupported allegations and unreferenced conclusions. Citizenposse 22:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
In addition, Rjensen has used HIS OWN RESEARCH as references for his edits of articles on the Republican Party. Isn't that a violation of the NOR rule? Citizenposse 22:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen has established a history of suppressing history, particularly on his own "conservative-NET" email list, in several instances: One Exchange Citizenposse 22:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Reject. A) Parties don't agree to mediate, B) Not a mediation case.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
This stems from a broader discussion on the John Brignell page which has transferred to the Relative Risk page. There has been extensive discussion of this matter on both talk pages by all sides. Mediation Cabal was attempted for the Brignell page but fell through when the mediator was unable to give the matter his full attention. That page was put to Arbitration but rejected. It will be put to Mediation at a latter date. This particular issue clearly cannot be solved by consensus; it needs the intervention of a third party; hence mediation.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
Principal parties:
To a lesser extent - I request that the requirement of these parties to consent to mediation be deemed optional as they are not actively part of the current dispute, though they have been previously involved and have been notified of RFM:
Possibly valid parties - The following people have no other WP history and may not be familiar with the process or want to be seriously invovled; I did not notify them of RFM:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
An anon user is harrasing me and making personal attacks on me. In addition, this user makes many reverts. I don't know who this is and so cannot give contact info on this person. See Talk page for Reactive Attachment Disorder and Attachment Disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attachment_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reactive_attachment_disorder#Mercer
I have tried to state where I got my information and be concilliatory.
Issue 1: Stop the personal attacks on me and saying that I am defaming and should be banned. Issue 2: Stop reverting my edits Issue 3: Mutual agreement to respect alternative points of view.
None
I received a message saying that I should contact this part of the web site, but I'm not sure what's required of me. I have added comments and signed them; I haven't deleted or otherwise altered ayone's material, nor have I made any personal remarks, although some have been made about me. I have been told that a statement I made about EBT status was deleted at one point and replaced by someone else.
For the record, I am female; my mother thought it was cute to name me after my father; I changed my spelling legally at the same time I was divorced and resumed my maiden name, and I did so in an apparently fruitless effort to avoid exactly this kind of misunderstanding. Dr. Becker-Weidman was informed of this fact some months ago, and in fact had to edit a letter to a journal with respect to this point before publication was permitted.
What there is to be mediated on my side escapes me, but no doubt such a process would be entertaining, so I certainly agree. Jean Mercer