Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lunca de Jos
Resolved?
[edit]User:Iadrian yu said on my talk page a few days ago that
"mediation is no longer needed since we have reached a consensus [1]"
Rokarudi, would you agree with this evaluation? AGK 20:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but only partially. The dispute was over 2 things: mentioning the Székely Land in the lead and inclusion of a map of the Székely Land into the articles on settlements. The first issue was solved by the formula that (the settlement) "lies in the ethno-cultural Székely Land region in eastern Transylvania". However, the problem of the inclusion of a map showing the settlements in the Székely Land was neither discussed nor solved, the only reference was from Hubacelgrand who expressed that he is not in favor of such a map. However, it was not discussed why to exclude the use of a map which shows the area otherwise that along current political/administrative units.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- The consensus was reached by (4 out of 5) users. If you are still pursuing the inclusion of the "Szekely land" separatist/irredentist movement map in the articles we can discuss it if you want, and I would like to hear your arguments for such an inclusion. I thought that you agree since you said so and we were talking about the inclusion of the map too (as the section name stated and discussed), where you had the chance to express your opinion and arguments (Now we need to have the same conversation here ?). If you wish for this mediation to continue please give a clear answer (Yes or No). Chears. Adrian (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- A little correction, the "formula" was lies in the ethno-cultural Székely Land region that we all agreed on. Eastern Transylvania is not a region. Adrian (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Mediation is a discussion, Adrian. If the parties feel that mediation of this second issue, if not both the points that Rokarudi outlines, then this case can certainly proceed. If not, then we should probably close this and leave you all to your own devices. In the event that a consensus on one or more of the individual issues cannot be reached, a new mediation request can certainly be filed. Regards, AGK 20:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- A consensus has been reached on the matter voted at the end, with the additional participation of three other editors. I feel the matter has been sufficiently discussed WP:STICK. I suggest the mediation be dropped, if the other user also agrees. Just to be clear, from my part I consider this closed for the reason above. However if this continues I would like to be informed. I await Rokarudi`s answer, but since he has failed to sustain his POV with valid arguments I doubt he can do that here.Adrian (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Mediation is a discussion, Adrian. If the parties feel that mediation of this second issue, if not both the points that Rokarudi outlines, then this case can certainly proceed. If not, then we should probably close this and leave you all to your own devices. In the event that a consensus on one or more of the individual issues cannot be reached, a new mediation request can certainly be filed. Regards, AGK 20:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I am happy to mediate if both parties still feel there is an issue. Andrevan@ 22:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hello Andrevan. I don`t think that mediation is needed anymore per reasons I explained in my last comment, however we should get a confirmation from the other party too. Adrian (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- If he hasn't responded since June 6 I think we can safely close the case. Andrevan@ 05:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andrevan, Thank you for your assistance. The matter is closed for the time being. Kind regards Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)