This page 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. |
Greetings, Parties, and thank you for agreeing to become involved in this Mediation. Such an action demonstrates that you are all willing to bring an end to this dispute, and thus are working for the good of Wikipedia - again, thank you.
For those of you who have not came across me around the encyclopedia yet, I'm AGK, although in conversation Anthony is fine. As one of the newest members of the Mediation Committee, I operate quite differently from other Mediators: my style of operation is to divide Mediation into three "stages" (as well as a fourth, initial stage which we're beginning right now) ... inventively named, Mediation Stages 1, 2 and 3 ;) each of these will help establish what each party wants (as well as exp, give each party an oppurtunity to explain why they think what they want should be implemented, and finally allow each party to put forward proposals for a solution to this dispute.
First, however, we need to agree on the Mediation Location (see below), and to allow any further parties to be put forward. In the meanwhile, any questions should be directed to me at my talk page; if you wish for a more private means of contact, details of getting in touch with me are available at my contact page.
Kind regards,
Anthøny (
talk) 13:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The recent straw poll concluded that consensus is to hold the Mediation on this page. This poll closed at 2/0/0 (Support/Oppose/Other) for this location.
Anthøny ( talk) 09:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
As there is only one issue to be Mediated in this case, this stage of the Mediation will simply be a post by each party, stating whether they agree or disagree with the issue in question, and why.
"Why" should be reasoned argument, preferably backed up by policy or guidelines, if they exist. In order to keep things standardised as much as possible, I've drew up a "template" for each party to use; simply copy the text below, change the fields to your personal view, and post underneath this section:
===[[User:*Your user name*|*Your name*]]=== My opinion is that the Russian name of the metro line [*should/should not*] be included in the lead of that article and other Kiev Metro articles. I think this because [*why you think the opinion you have given above is correct*]. ~~~~
Please proceed to post your opinion below this section.
Kind regards,
Anthøny (
talk) 09:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that the Russian name of the metro line should not be included in the lead of that article and other Kiev Metro articles.
I think this because inclusion of Russian names in these articles violates a number of WP policies, and namely:
My opinion is that the Russian name of the metro line should be included in the lead of that article and other Kiev Metro articles.
I think this because:
My opinion is that the Russian name of the metro line should be included in the lead of that article and other Kiev Metro articles.
I think this because:
So in summary here is my proposal - as long as there are trusted sources (per WP:V) for Russian name, based on WP:NPOV - names should be represented fairly and without bias in all significant languages (in our situation this is Russian and Ukrainian as others languages does not pass 10% test). There should not be omissions because some people don't like it to be included.
I can only agree that transliteration of Russian name in English can be omitted - to not introduce WP:OR as transliteration is often unsourced. I.e. in my opinion this is correct lead (per WP:NCGN - all names in () with official comes first).
TAG 17:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting a little concerned that there isn't enough input from the other parties in this Mediation. Please note that I cannot provide a platform for Mediation (that is, keep this case open) unless all the parties are willing to participate in Mediation.
I'd encourage the active parties at this page to get in touch with those who are inactive, urging them to participate.
Anthøny 12:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've removed all the discussion sections, and I'd ask parties to both refrain from restoring them (or the content that was included in them), and to refrain from continuing discussion over statements: this will come at a later stage. The only discussion section that will remain is that which came under the statement of Hillock65 ( talk · contribs), as that contains invited outside views that I believe have a place here ~ Anthøny 20:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Parties - could I please have some input over the status of this case? Are there any parties willing to participate, or is the general opinion that Mediation is no longer necessary, either due to extra-Mediation circumstances, or due to recent developments on the party front (e.g., Hillock retiring).
Anthøny ん 10:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This page 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. |
Greetings, Parties, and thank you for agreeing to become involved in this Mediation. Such an action demonstrates that you are all willing to bring an end to this dispute, and thus are working for the good of Wikipedia - again, thank you.
For those of you who have not came across me around the encyclopedia yet, I'm AGK, although in conversation Anthony is fine. As one of the newest members of the Mediation Committee, I operate quite differently from other Mediators: my style of operation is to divide Mediation into three "stages" (as well as a fourth, initial stage which we're beginning right now) ... inventively named, Mediation Stages 1, 2 and 3 ;) each of these will help establish what each party wants (as well as exp, give each party an oppurtunity to explain why they think what they want should be implemented, and finally allow each party to put forward proposals for a solution to this dispute.
First, however, we need to agree on the Mediation Location (see below), and to allow any further parties to be put forward. In the meanwhile, any questions should be directed to me at my talk page; if you wish for a more private means of contact, details of getting in touch with me are available at my contact page.
Kind regards,
Anthøny (
talk) 13:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The recent straw poll concluded that consensus is to hold the Mediation on this page. This poll closed at 2/0/0 (Support/Oppose/Other) for this location.
Anthøny ( talk) 09:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
As there is only one issue to be Mediated in this case, this stage of the Mediation will simply be a post by each party, stating whether they agree or disagree with the issue in question, and why.
"Why" should be reasoned argument, preferably backed up by policy or guidelines, if they exist. In order to keep things standardised as much as possible, I've drew up a "template" for each party to use; simply copy the text below, change the fields to your personal view, and post underneath this section:
===[[User:*Your user name*|*Your name*]]=== My opinion is that the Russian name of the metro line [*should/should not*] be included in the lead of that article and other Kiev Metro articles. I think this because [*why you think the opinion you have given above is correct*]. ~~~~
Please proceed to post your opinion below this section.
Kind regards,
Anthøny (
talk) 09:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that the Russian name of the metro line should not be included in the lead of that article and other Kiev Metro articles.
I think this because inclusion of Russian names in these articles violates a number of WP policies, and namely:
My opinion is that the Russian name of the metro line should be included in the lead of that article and other Kiev Metro articles.
I think this because:
My opinion is that the Russian name of the metro line should be included in the lead of that article and other Kiev Metro articles.
I think this because:
So in summary here is my proposal - as long as there are trusted sources (per WP:V) for Russian name, based on WP:NPOV - names should be represented fairly and without bias in all significant languages (in our situation this is Russian and Ukrainian as others languages does not pass 10% test). There should not be omissions because some people don't like it to be included.
I can only agree that transliteration of Russian name in English can be omitted - to not introduce WP:OR as transliteration is often unsourced. I.e. in my opinion this is correct lead (per WP:NCGN - all names in () with official comes first).
TAG 17:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting a little concerned that there isn't enough input from the other parties in this Mediation. Please note that I cannot provide a platform for Mediation (that is, keep this case open) unless all the parties are willing to participate in Mediation.
I'd encourage the active parties at this page to get in touch with those who are inactive, urging them to participate.
Anthøny 12:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've removed all the discussion sections, and I'd ask parties to both refrain from restoring them (or the content that was included in them), and to refrain from continuing discussion over statements: this will come at a later stage. The only discussion section that will remain is that which came under the statement of Hillock65 ( talk · contribs), as that contains invited outside views that I believe have a place here ~ Anthøny 20:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Parties - could I please have some input over the status of this case? Are there any parties willing to participate, or is the general opinion that Mediation is no longer necessary, either due to extra-Mediation circumstances, or due to recent developments on the party front (e.g., Hillock retiring).
Anthøny ん 10:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)