Talk:Hwacha/Mediation

message: This is the mediation page for resolving the issue of whether or not to include pop culture references in the Hwacha article.  Please post any comments regarding said debate below in the appropriate section.  A few things to keep in mind:
*Be civil.
*Be brief.
*Be open minded.
I look forward to talking with you all and getting this issue resolved quickly and painlessly. →Bobby← 14:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Info

message: In this section, I will provide updates regarding the mediation.
*14:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates

message: Please post comments regarding your availability over the holiday season, as well as any changes in your feelings about the issue here.
My compromise offer still stands. I still am of the opinion that the section should be replaced or removed. --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 16:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. The Genre "Turn-based strategy" has nothing whatsoever to do with Hwacha, and the genre doesn't include all the games involved, some are "real-time strategy" games, right?  But that's really irrelevant.  This isn't about 'how another party has acted' it's about the offer of compromise being NOT an offer of compromise.  HappyApple has offered a compromise, which continually gets ignored.  The compromise offered (remember this is a compromise to stop the edit war over removing the whole paragraph and reinstating it) was to allow the paragraph to be edited to remove what was objectionable, and as well to correct the flawed grammar... entirely consistent with wikipedia custom and policy.  Further, the paragraph has been removed, and not replaced, HappyApple has unilaterally ceased fire in the ongoing edit war. That is also a compromise and shows good faith.  The "I will not budge compromise of 2006" will surely go down in history as one of the great examples of demonstrating bad faith, and unwillingness to compromise. User:Pedant 23:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several points I will bring up right away. You have brought up behavior several times, even in the edit made above. The compromise I offered is flexible, in that the genres listed can be changed, added to. But you made it clear to me, shortly after I first made the offer that you were absolutely not interested in this compromise. Listing the names of the games, linking to them in the article, is not a compromise either, since it is exactly that which I and other object to. I am offering a compromise where the genre(s) are named instead of the game titles. If those games are notable, then they can be noted on the genre's article. --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 10:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Holiday Mediation

message: I think this dispute it is likely to will move forward to an advanced level of dispute resolution process. I tried in all ways and terms to solve this apparent dispute in an informal way contacting an advocate who can represent me in presenting my arguments but it seems OrbitOne's insistence would force this dispute move to a formal level, and i think it is quite baseless because he had mischaracterizatied Wikipedia policies.
#In my point of view, and the years i have edited so far on Wikipedia, i have never seen such flames or disputes regarding popular culture or games, in fact they seem to be widely tolerated by wikipedia community.
#OrbitOne has used this words : "Since we are going into wikilawyering, I can play the same game."
*First of all we are not playing a game, we are discussing if Popular culture and the games included on the section it should be keep or delete. In my opinion there are many articles, such as Trebuchet, Piltdown man, Turtle ship, and even Dromon (which was recently deleted by OrbitOne) and so on which featured a popular culture trivia created by editors which maybe in some cases were not experienced ones, but they indeed felt the inclusion of such information was valuable to the article because showed readers how this or that weapon or article was related to another one. 
Although readers would focus their attention on how the weapon was designed and how it was used, this doesn't mean that games or popular culture wouldn't gather their attention too. 
In fact if we see documentaries on television from National Geographic and even the A&E's famous Biography, we can see that after all the professionalism there is a popular culture reference near the end of the program.
Back to Wikilawyering, i think OrbitOne is not figuring Wikilawyering it is not a good thing, and i quote: "Utilization of the word "Wikilawyering" typically has negative connotations, much like the term "meatpuppet"; those utilizing the term should take care that it can be backed up and isn't frivolous." 
and for this i believe OrbitOne isn't taking this dispute seriously.
I am in favor to get to an accord instead going into a tedious process of dispute resolution. And i want to quote Pedant's words. We are working together, Wikipedia it is about team work, not a feudal system. I appeal to editors being tolerant, finally i want to quote Matt words which i feel are very important on this issue, "Deleting content that other people have worked on does not encourage anyone to contribute to Wikipedia. Do not let your personal prejudices / intellectual snobbery persuade you that many other members' contributions are worthless." HappyApple 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HappyApple:

message: User:HappyApple is not a native speaker of the English language and has requested an advocate's assistance so that the user may be clearly understood. User:HappyApple believes that established policy supports inclusion of the text in question, in part because of the following points:
#The general consensus of the entire wikipedia is that information which is factual and relevant and verifiable is included, not excluded.
#User OrbitOne is misrepresenting 'general consensus' regarding inclusion of games being non-notable.  General consensus cannot be determined by discussion on one single article, it is determined by the overall consensus wikipedia-wide.  The links in question are to other existing wikipedia articles.  If the games in question were not notable, there would not be wikipedia articles on them.  This shows that there is a general consensus that the topics are notable.  Otherwise the articles would be deleted.  Discussion of notability should take place on the articles themselves.
#User OrbitOne is misrepresenting the policy "Wikipedia is not a link exchange", which has no bearing on the inclusion or non-inclusion of internal links.
#User OrbitOne mischaracterizes the removed material as:
##A link exchange, see the applicable policy here which states in part: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article".
##A list, which it demonstrably is not, the material was in paragraph form.  Unless the paragraph is kept, it cannot be expanded by other editors.
##A directory of games, which again it demonstrably is not, on the contrary it is a mention of related articles, showing the title subject with respect to popular culture, a very common and accepted wikipedia practice, see: Trebuchet for an example of an article on weaponry with links to other articles about game, See the policy on directories here  which contains the relevant text:  "(Wikipedia is NOT)  Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable). Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article." This policy has nothing to do with the text in question. User:Pedant 20:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above quote refers to a discussion in which the preponderance of edits were made by OrbitOne, after the dispute had started and the discussion did not generate any consensus whatsoever. User:Pedant 22:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pedant

message: I propose deletion of the page for following reasons.
*Focus: The October 24 2006 study by The Guardian magazine  identified one of the three major problems within Wikipedia as being wrong focus. Articles tend to focus more on trivial issues than on important matters. I don't understand why there should be an informative popular culture & game section.
:*Double bind: Either the section is too brief that it should not be inserted in the article or the section is too much on a trivial issue that it would hurt focus and education.
*Education: The purpose of Wikipedia is to serve as an encyclopedia, an educational entity or product. Losing focus loses education because humans can read and learn so much that sections about games and movies in military/historical articles would waste time that would have been spent on reading other articles.
*Manner of writing: An article should not expand too much into every single trivial matters because it's just impossible to write a good article or essay under mutually inclusive efforts. Such type of articles will never become featured or good articles, and one key principle of Wikipedia is constant improvement. It destroys one of the principles of Wikipedia.
*Principles of Wikipedia: They might argue that the cornerstone of Wikipedia is the "that anybody can edit". Articles are not restricted to only those that would be found in encyclopedias. But this itself isn't even a policy, but, a guideline, always open to change. More importantly, the reason for this guideline was set under consensus only to prevent administrative control that would inhibit cooperative and democratic atmosphere of the current Wikipedia, only to prevent the control of the system by the academic elite. But as long as the deletion of the popular culture section is reasonably non-topical to the article Hwacha, it should be voted on. 
*Reasonability: The guidelines and policies of Wikipedia were established to improve the encyclopedia and maintain its orderly survival. As long as the deletion of the "popular culture" is reasonably better than the keeping of the section, then principles of Wikipedia can be overriden. 
:*Double bind 2: Either the infos about popular culture for Hwacha are so developed that they can create another article for it, or the article is deleted upon creation because it does not suit as an encyclopedia entry in its small forms.
(Wikimachine 00:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikimachine

message: I don't think they can be applicable to anyone but members of the wikiproject.  If they were, they would be wikipedia policies and not wikiproject guidelines. The scope of the project is whatever the project decides it is, but the scope of wikipedia policies is the entire wikipedia and supercede any conflicting guidelines arbitrarily established by a small subset of the wikipedia.  Such guidelines are not exposed to community-wide consensus, which is why they are not policies, but only guidelines. A guideline is not a policy.  Any given user is unlikely to be aware of the guideline and will edit the article without regard to the guideline, understandably, and popular culture sections have been a part of wikipedia since the beginning of wikipedia.  Further, it is my belief that this is a new guideline which has been created since the start of this dispute.  It would be of interest to note who proposed the guideline and how many editors were involved in the consensus discussion.  The discussion on the village pump was primarily dominated by disputants in this case, and no consensus was arrived at there.  Any wikiproject can arbitrarily decide if any article is within its scope, however wikiprojects still have no authority to contradict wikipedian policy.User:Pedant 23:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline was created on October 2nd, 2006 . (Wikimachine 00:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are the [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject Military History|WikiProject Military History Guidelines]] Applicable?

message: There have been no arguments or explanations as to why games are relevant or notable for Hwacha (weapon).--OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 23:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance

message: Several essays support the deletion of Fancruft, irrelevant sections and policy demands the deletion added with out discrimination. Essays, although not policies, are a guide to understanding the intent of policy on Wikipedia. Essays therefor are the proper understandings of policies of Wikipedia.--OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 23:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FanCruft

message: I didn't think this was really necassary, but perhaps it will serve as a good reminder.  In looking over some of the comments on the talk page, I noticed some comparisons to other encyclopedias (I think Brittanica was mentioned).  While it is undoubtedly true the EB would not reference games in which Hwachas appear, it also would probably not reference the majority of things in the WP article because it does not have the space.  Thus, when debating the pop culture issue, it would be helpful to all parties if we avoided comparisons between WP and the other major reference books.  →Bobby← 14:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia|WP is not a Paper Encyclopedia]]

message: Some editors who support deletion argue that links to game articles in the Hwacha section are used for advertising purposes.  If the links are added in a good faith effort to create a more comprehensive encyclopedia (and not for advertising) would the editors supporting deletion think about the issue any differently?  →Bobby← 15:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the motivation does matter to me. I am convinced the links were added in good faith now, which is why I am offering the compromise.--OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 15:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The motivation was clearly not to increase pageranking and is an irrelevant straw man or red herring. The compromise offered would delete the relevant info and only include the irrelevant link to Turn-based strategy.  This "offer" included the "I will not budge" clause, which is not acceptable.  "I will not budge" flouts the requirement to reach consensus, is extortive, not collaborative, and in general violates almost every well-settled fundamental wikipedian values.  "I will not budge" is a fundamental problem with the user's mindset, which I believe shows an inability to work constructively and collaboratively, without breaches of civility, and shows a flagrant disregard of wikipedian core values. User:Pedant 00:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the Motivation Behind Inclusion of Games Matter?

message: In a compromise below, OrbitOne allows for the inclusion of a sentence stating that Hwachas are depicted in a genre of computer games so long as game names are not mentioned.  This was met with strong opposition from the inclusion party.  Here's my question then:  How does providing names to games improve the article more than simply providing a link to the genre of games? →Bobby← 15:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of Games in the Hwacha Article

message: ===HappyApple's Compromise===
This idea was offered on the article talk page AND on the original mediation page:
HappyApple offers that other editors are free and encouraged to correct his grammar.  HappyApple is not a native speaker of the English language.  HappyApple offers to not engage in an edit war over the issue of whether the section be retained or not, yet still insists that the information is factual, referenced, and relevant to the article, and therefore should not be deleted. As his advocate, I think that "it sounds unprofessional, extraneous, and inappropriate" is a pretty vague charge, and that the tone of the text can be edited by anyone to make it sound more "professional" and to remove "extraneous" information.  We do not agree that it is inappropriate, and ask for a better description of why it is inappropriate. User:Pedant 23:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE(this interpretation is based on an extensive email correspondence with HappyApple, and is expressed in my words, and comes from my understanding of his intent, I do not make continual consults with him on a moment-to-moment basis, as he has already been burdened by this long argument, in a foreign language, with several editors who have already shown an unwillingness to discuss this as gentlemen and colleagues.  His edits were made with a sincere good intent and he feels that the content is valuable enough to the wikipedia to fight for its inclusion, yet he prefers to settle this through rational discussion, rather than an edit war.  Since this was apparently impossible, he requested the services of an advocate, who would listen and try to understand him.  As an advocate, I often have to explain to my advocee that they are wrong, or that their behavior was inappropriate, however in this case, I feel he did the best he could, and was viciously bitten for it. I feel that the compromise need not have been made, since this was exactly what he originally did, He reinstated the info and requested discussion for any deletions.)User:Pedant 00:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If this compromise is accepted, I am willing to help HappyApple write the section. But I will not budge from the conditions that 1) no games be named, 2) no games be linked to. --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not acceptable, vague references are not informative, and links to other articles are a core concept of the wikipedia project.  It is not up to one or 2 users to make ultimata which would bind the entire community.  Consensus is a core part of the idea of wikipedia, and "I will not budge" is entirely incompatible with the consensus process.  If "I will not budge" is OrbitOne's position then it follows that this cannot be solved informally.  Note that both times OrbitOne has attempted to outvote consensus, the vote has been to keep and not delete the section.  HappyApple's position that the information be not deleted without explanation, and his invitation to all other users to freely edit the text is however, entirely within the nature and intent of the wikipedian core principles. User:Pedant 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must ask. Did you at all present this compromise to HappyApple? Unless you have taken up his cause as personal,then I do not think it is your call to object to such compromises without HappyApple saying so.--OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As an advocate, my first duty is to the Wikipedia community at large. Such an offer is not acceptable to the community.   As I said before "I will not budge" is entirely incompatible with the consensus process. The consensus process is a fundamental unshakeable mandate, without which the community ceases to function.  Your demand that no games be mentioned or referenced is absurd, and acceding to that demand would countervail established community consensus.  Your compromise is no compromise at all, and is a blatant attempt to coerce the community to follow your wishes.  It is clear that short of banning you, the wikipedian community must let you have your way, in support of which you could not find more than 2 other editors in the original discussion and vote.  It is clear you hold the consensus process in contempt.  In this case I do not find it necessary to consult with HappyApple, as he has made his position clear.  His position is that cross-references are an enhancement of value to the wikipedia, and your "compromise" is a direct attack on that premise, which I believe would not be supported by any random assemblage of the community at large. User:Pedant 23:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise Offers 

message: This idea was offered on the article talk page AND on the original mediation page:
HappyApple offers that other editors are free and encouraged to correct his grammar.  HappyApple is not a native speaker of the English language.  HappyApple offers to not engage in an edit war over the issue of whether the section be retained or not, yet still insists that the information is factual, referenced, and relevant to the article, and therefore should not be deleted. As his advocate, I think that "it sounds unprofessional, extraneous, and inappropriate" is a pretty vague charge, and that the tone of the text can be edited by anyone to make it sound more "professional" and to remove "extraneous" information.  We do not agree that it is inappropriate, and ask for a better description of why it is inappropriate. User:Pedant 23:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE(this interpretation is based on an extensive email correspondence with HappyApple, and is expressed in my words, and comes from my understanding of his intent, I do not make continual consults with him on a moment-to-moment basis, as he has already been burdened by this long argument, in a foreign language, with several editors who have already shown an unwillingness to discuss this as gentlemen and colleagues.  His edits were made with a sincere good intent and he feels that the content is valuable enough to the wikipedia to fight for its inclusion, yet he prefers to settle this through rational discussion, rather than an edit war.  Since this was apparently impossible, he requested the services of an advocate, who would listen and try to understand him.  As an advocate, I often have to explain to my advocee that they are wrong, or that their behavior was inappropriate, however in this case, I feel he did the best he could, and was viciously bitten for it. I feel that the compromise need not have been made, since this was exactly what he originally did, He reinstated the info and requested discussion for any deletions.)User:Pedant 00:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HappyApple's Compromise

message: Pedant (or HappyApple).  Could you clarify the above position slightly.  I think I understand the idea HappyApple is striving for.  However, "grammar" could be interpreted different ways by different editors.  I don't want to run into a situation down the road where another user uses HappyApple's grammar as a justification for editting his prose, but HappyApple comes back and reverts because he feels that more than grammar was changed.  Thanks, →Bobby← 14:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE(this interpretation is based on an extensive email correspondence with HappyApple, and is expressed in my words, and comes from my understanding of his intent, I do not make continual consults with him on a moment-to-moment basis, as he has already been burdened by this long argument, in a foreign language, with several editors who have already shown an unwillingness to discuss this as gentlemen and colleagues.  His edits were made with a sincere good intent and he feels that the content is valuable enough to the wikipedia to fight for its inclusion, yet he prefers to settle this through rational discussion, rather than an edit war.  Since this was apparently impossible, he requested the services of an advocate, who would listen and try to understand him.  As an advocate, I often have to explain to my advocee that they are wrong, or that their behavior was inappropriate, however in this case, I feel he did the best he could, and was viciously bitten for it. I feel that the compromise need not have been made, since this was exactly what he originally did, He reinstated the info and requested discussion for any deletions.)User:Pedant 00:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: HappyApple feels that the information is relevant and factual and neutral in tone.  He also understands that his writing, while writing in the English language may not in all cases be up to the standards of the encyclopedia.  He believes that the information is of value.
He feels that the original problem came from people deleting his text without explanation other than saying it was poorly-written (see Talk:Hwacha) and telling him to go away, and calling him names. He has already refrained from reinstating the text, in order to cool the discussion and allow forward progress on the article in the meantime. However, he understands the core principle of collaboration, and encourages anyone to either edit the text for clarity, style or grammar, or to remove any information (accompanied by an explanation other than "Game Maniacs go away!" on the talk page) that does not belong.  In short, he believes the text is of reference value, and that the flaws are minor and correctable by simple editing, but that wholesale excision of useful data, without an accompanying explanation is not satisfactory and does not suit wikipedian policy that all edits are made with the intent to create a better encyclopedia.  His offer of compromise is made in the spirit of assuming good faith that other editors will behave appropriately, and that the prior incivility and personal insults were made through ignorance of policy rather than malice. User:Pedant  
:NOTE(this interpretation is based on an extensive email correspondence with HappyApple, and is expressed in my words, and comes from my understanding of his intent, I do not make continual consults with him on a moment-to-moment basis, as he has already been burdened by this long argument, in a foreign language, with several editors who have already shown an unwillingness to discuss this as gentlemen and colleagues.  His edits were made with a sincere good intent and he feels that the content is valuable enough to the wikipedia to fight for its inclusion, yet he prefers to settle this through rational discussion, rather than an edit war.  Since this was apparently impossible, he requested the services of an advocate, who would listen and try to understand him.  As an advocate, I often have to explain to my advocee that they are wrong, or that their behavior was inappropriate, however in this case, I feel he did the best he could, and was viciously bitten for it. I feel that the compromise need not have been made, since this was exactly what he originally did, He reinstated the info and requested discussion for any deletions.)User:Pedant 00:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: clarification

message: This idea was offered on the mediation request page:
*09:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this compromise is accepted, I am willing to help HappyApple write the section. But I will not budge from the conditions that 1) no games be named, 2) no games be linked to. --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not acceptable, vague references are not informative, and links to other articles are a core concept of the wikipedia project.  It is not up to one or 2 users to make ultimata which would bind the entire community.  Consensus is a core part of the idea of wikipedia, and "I will not budge" is entirely incompatible with the consensus process.  If "I will not budge" is OrbitOne's position then it follows that this cannot be solved informally.  Note that both times OrbitOne has attempted to outvote consensus, the vote has been to keep and not delete the section.  HappyApple's position that the information be not deleted without explanation, and his invitation to all other users to freely edit the text is however, entirely within the nature and intent of the wikipedian core principles. User:Pedant 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must ask. Did you at all present this compromise to HappyApple? Unless you have taken up his cause as personal,then I do not think it is your call to object to such compromises without HappyApple saying so.--OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As an advocate, my first duty is to the Wikipedia community at large. Such an offer is not acceptable to the community.   As I said before "I will not budge" is entirely incompatible with the consensus process. The consensus process is a fundamental unshakeable mandate, without which the community ceases to function.  Your demand that no games be mentioned or referenced is absurd, and acceding to that demand would countervail established community consensus.  Your compromise is no compromise at all, and is a blatant attempt to coerce the community to follow your wishes.  It is clear that short of banning you, the wikipedian community must let you have your way, in support of which you could not find more than 2 other editors in the original discussion and vote.  It is clear you hold the consensus process in contempt.  In this case I do not find it necessary to consult with HappyApple, as he has made his position clear.  His position is that cross-references are an enhancement of value to the wikipedia, and your "compromise" is a direct attack on that premise, which I believe would not be supported by any random assemblage of the community at large. User:Pedant 23:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OrbitOne's Compromise

message: From my perspective, this is a very reasonable compromise.  It allows for a mild pop culture reference without detracting from the formal tone of the article.  Please post comments on this idea below. →Bobby← 14:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this compromise is accepted, I am willing to help HappyApple write the section. But I will not budge from the conditions that 1) no games be named, 2) no games be linked to. --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not acceptable, vague references are not informative, and links to other articles are a core concept of the wikipedia project.  It is not up to one or 2 users to make ultimata which would bind the entire community.  Consensus is a core part of the idea of wikipedia, and "I will not budge" is entirely incompatible with the consensus process.  If "I will not budge" is OrbitOne's position then it follows that this cannot be solved informally.  Note that both times OrbitOne has attempted to outvote consensus, the vote has been to keep and not delete the section.  HappyApple's position that the information be not deleted without explanation, and his invitation to all other users to freely edit the text is however, entirely within the nature and intent of the wikipedian core principles. User:Pedant 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must ask. Did you at all present this compromise to HappyApple? Unless you have taken up his cause as personal,then I do not think it is your call to object to such compromises without HappyApple saying so.--OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As an advocate, my first duty is to the Wikipedia community at large. Such an offer is not acceptable to the community.   As I said before "I will not budge" is entirely incompatible with the consensus process. The consensus process is a fundamental unshakeable mandate, without which the community ceases to function.  Your demand that no games be mentioned or referenced is absurd, and acceding to that demand would countervail established community consensus.  Your compromise is no compromise at all, and is a blatant attempt to coerce the community to follow your wishes.  It is clear that short of banning you, the wikipedian community must let you have your way, in support of which you could not find more than 2 other editors in the original discussion and vote.  It is clear you hold the consensus process in contempt.  In this case I do not find it necessary to consult with HappyApple, as he has made his position clear.  His position is that cross-references are an enhancement of value to the wikipedia, and your "compromise" is a direct attack on that premise, which I believe would not be supported by any random assemblage of the community at large. User:Pedant 23:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Is this discussion still active or being actively mediated?  Do you need another mediator or can the case be closed?  --Ideogram 20:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active?