User talk:LawrenceTrevallion
Thanks for taking this on. Can we give it a couple more days? Although the status quo seems to have settled on the side that I had hoped, but I'd like to make sure that we're not dealing with a weekend thing where opposing opinions come in after-the-fact. I'd rather see all sides make a case, given a reasonable amount of time to do so. Again, thanks for volunteering your time on this. --Elliskev 01:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your willingness to help and I have absolutely nothing against you, but let's agree that your lack of experience could be a problem. AFAIK, mediators are usually experienced editors intimately familiar with WP policies & guidelines. Both you and User:FightCancer are new users. What happened to our usual practice: using the talk page? As you can see, there was no active discussion for a week. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- "FightCancer believes the discussion should contiue." - I have no problem with that, but to continue discussion, it should be started. There was no active discussion for a week. What exactly is being discussed? Do you know relevant policies? Sorry, this whole affair does not seem serious. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for helping, and I think I might have been a bit hasty in asking for mediation. I just don't like it when people won't accept a fact. I will keep an eye on what goes on in the next few days, and if I need help I will contact you again. Thanks! --Banpei 04:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi LawurenceTevallion, I am Crunch, the person Banpei asked you to mediate with regarding the Project Runway Season 3 edit. It's my first time being part of something like this and, frankly, it seems like a bit of toil and trouble for something so minor. I posted my response to Banpei on his (her?) page, but I thought I'd send it to you as well. It's my hope this will be a good compromise solution. Obviously, it was just a simple misinterpretation leading to a misundestanding. Thanks for your help.
--My response to User:Banpei: Hi Banpei. I am Crunch. This is my response. I rewrote the summary because the summary is based on the show, not the Podcast and the show very clearly states that each designer had three, and only three, bins, as well as only thirty minutes to fill them. The exact wording from Tim Gunn in the show is, "There are three bins for each of you to collect your materials your materials. [camera shot of the a stack of three green bins] This challenge is about creativity..." This plays at about six minutes into the episode if you happen to have the show on TiVo or VHS as I do. I did listen to the Podcast and Gunn does say, "I think they can have basically as many as they want, but nobody filled more than three. I would hope we can agree that this article is a summary of the show Project Runway, not Tim Gunn's Podcast recorded month's later in which he apparently forgot what he himself said in the actual show. Perhaps a compromise would be to just not mention the number of bins at all and just say:
Each designer has thirty minutes to collect recyclable materials. From this, they must create an outfit.
This is simple, leaves out the ambiguous information about the number of bins and also leaves out the external reference to the Podcast, which seems a bit disconcerting in the middle of the summary and is certainly not in the format of the other summaries for all other episodes in Project Runway from this season and the previous two. I'm not sure mediation is necessary for this decision. What do you think? Regards, Crunch 00:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC
Please let me know if there is anything else I should do. I hope my proposed compromise can be accepted. Regards, Crunch 00:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've also added to the discussion at the Project Runway Talk page, which I wasn't aware was going on until I received the notice that this mediation was going to take place. As you can see, I'm proposing the same change, which involves removing mention of the number of bins altog. I do apologize for you getting dragged into this, when you're mediating disputes on articles on the Middle East and Mel Gibson, it seems quite trivial Crunch 01:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Lawrence, thanks for your help, and we've resolved the situation (more or less). I do not think that anything on Wikipedia is trivial as it pertains to public knowledge, but I took offense to the way Crunch runs the Project Runway page, deleting things without discussing them first or verifying the reference. I think he thought that I came specifically to you for help however, and if you didn't want to take this case then you wouldn't have accepted it. Thank you for your help! --Banpei 07:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal: How to describe the entity in Northern Cyprus[edit]
(Not now) Please note that i ask for your presence as a mediator.
Dear LawrenceTrevallion,
I am more than willing to discuss with anyone and come to a consensus with the issue at hand. Even Adam777 that has accused me so many times with no evidence other than his personal opinion. By the way I am not familiar with this mediation rules but isn’t there something that you should do to stop him from accusing individuals? I find his comments terribly offending plus if you are here to offer a hand then shouldn’t you step in when he is not willing to debate? For multiple reasons I am not willing to put the issue of using “de facto” to a vote. The most important being that: 1. This is an ipso facto political dispute not to be reached to a consensus through voters in wikipedia but through hard core irrefutable evidence.
Further to that please note that no user in this debate has brought evidence to the contrary of my arguments but personal opinions. I see NO reason, no evidence why the intro should not be amended the way that I suggest (directly retrieved from the Security Council). The only reason why this is not done so far is because of personal opinions and biases.
Hi Lawrence,
I am mentioning this here because i am not sure if this mediation is over?
Can i edit the intro now? or will my posts be reverted?
Regards, --Aristovoulos 17:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
"On the TRNC talk page I have suggested the use of a poll to decide if "de facto" is a legitimate description. If this is satisfactory, please let me know". LawrenceTrevallion 15:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi LawrenceTrevallion, (I am also pasting this on Adams Talk page)
As you can see i am still trying to have a conversation with Adam777. As you also can see when Adam is questioned and has no answer he immediately changes the subject and accuses myself of being biased. Lets try to give Adam some more time I need an answer on the following question from Adam, then we could discuss a poll.
Adams intro "when in fact calling the TRNC a 'de facto illegal state in the north of the republic of cyprus' will suffice. Adam777 19:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)"
Please explain why the two intros differ so much and you disagree with the one i suggest.
The "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" was self-declared. The UN considers TRNC as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal. It possesses an administration and infrastructure, located in the north of the Republic of Cyprus. The de jure Republic of Cyprus can not exert its authority over its northern third, because of the Turkish forces.
Why dont we put the two intros for a poll (His and mine)?
lets give him some time..Aristovoulos 09:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Since there is nothing you can do then Adam’s accusations will be left aside. I forgot that you are “just a friend giving a hand”. Thank you very much for your time Lawrence. Aristovoulos 17:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
TRNC Intro[edit]
Hi Laurance, I actually already replied to your question about a vote some days ago. However Aristovous answers every question with 100 lines of cut and paste so the page is very difficult to follow now. I have no problem with a vote and with adhering to the results of the vote but please can we archive the current talk page contents or no users will know about it. I am curious to know why if you have agreed that de facto is the correct term that we are putting things to a vote. I can tell you now that if the greek contingent on that page lose a vote they will not adhere to that. I however will. This is just nationalism rearing its ugly head. Adam777 22:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply. As stated I will adhere to the results of a vote. Adam777 10:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that sockpuppets/meatpuppets wont have their vote counted? One has already appeared on the TRNC talk page Sixten66 using the same arguments as Aristovouls (and has a thinly veiled mild nationalistic insult aimed at me on his user page). Its no biggie but I just wanted to let you know that this is taking place. Adam777 19:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- You know what I think Ive changed my mind. Im going to pull back from that article and stop editing for a spell as its taking up too much of my time on wikipedia. The other editors in question (aristovolus and his sockpuppet) are new accounts and have come to wikipedia with pre-formed opinions and that shows in their edits, most of which have been reverted for POV reasons. In this informal mediation you have agreed that the intro of that article uses the correct terminology and all a vote would do is pander to the 'squeeky wheel' of nationalism when we shouldnt do anything of the sort. There are enough unbiased editors on all three sides of the debate (turkish pov, greek pov and the truth) watching this article to keep future arbritaty edits by POV users reverted should they happen. I am content with the status quo, should the POV activity from other editors escalate then I will request a formal mediation (from the UN maybe :) ). This one just seems to be sliding to the side of whomever 'nay-says' the loudest. Thank you for your time and your help. Adam777 11:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
WW2 munitions cabal[edit]
I prefer "The first way would essentially be that I consider the old arguments, along with any new ones that are presented, and render a decision. If you choose this method, please also agree that my decision will be binding." Rjensen 02:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- So far this mediation process, initiated solely by Rjensen, has shown nothing. It will be nonbinding. If you have anything to offer, please get on with it. Haber 03:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'll accept the second method: "The second method involves a negotiation process whereby we will discuss the matter. If you choose the second, I would ask that you be willing to compromise." Rjensen 09:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Schadenfreude Mediation[edit]
Heck, I was going to write to you later this morning, having just gotten back into things.
Anyway, if it still matters, I think some people need examples as this is an unusual word. I would be willing to accept a freeze of the section with the status quo as it existed at the time arbitration began, without the extra material added since by others (including a repeat of material both Mackan and I agreed was cruft). There was enough there to satisfy me.
If it isn't too late, how about that?
Davidkevin 17:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!