Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/World War II

message: Mediator note: We can agree on a list in general, or if necessary take a vote on each country, deciding whether it belongs in the top or bottom piles. One important way to define relevance is to adhere to the particular spheres of conflict. There are understandably caveats. Was France an allied combatant? Or was it for the most part taken over by Germany? We can sort all of this out methodically I think. Another way to define a cutoff point would be to let the smaller list, in this case the Axis list, define the number of Allied parties represented. Can we have an Axis list added, someone?
Regards, -Stevertigo 02:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Axis list added, as well as two extras for the Allies. Xaxafrad 04:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent.  -Stevertigo 07:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: It's been some time now.  Is everyone still interested in this mediation? Haber 03:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still here :) Parsecboy 12:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess now that American Idol is heating up, people have better things to do.  Motion to exclude them from the infobox about this mediation. Haber 20:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm here, too. I'm been waiting for Stevertigo to weigh in, but he seems to be a busy Wikipedian (and that's probably only when he isn't busy in real life). Until he has the time to come to a decision and make some comments about it, I'd like to summarize the basic arguments. I'll start a new section for it, but I think it shouldn't take the form of a discussion (with signatures, and what not). Xaxafrad 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Haber 21:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's going on? 

message: This is done.  I formally withdraw, and I intend to open the infobox back up to any editor who wishes to work on it. Haber 22:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yet another triumph for your inclusive, consensus-building style of doing things! In fairness, it's obvious that this mediation is going nowhere and much of the blame for that must go to the mediator, who turned up without actually even reading the arguments, totally misunderstand the issue, tried to dictate some changes that completely missed the point and that very few people wanted, made little or no effort whatsoever to encourage the disputing editors to compromise or come together, and then quickly disappeared completely. If this is how mediation works, it's fair to say that I at least won't be going back down this route again in a hurry. Now, Haber- are you going to actually make any attempt to contribute a substantive argument to support your views, or are you just going to ignore everyone else as usual and provoke another stupid edit war over this issue? Badgerpatrol 09:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you still trying to win?  Who do you think is even listening? Haber 03:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear. The only person who has ever characterised this debate in terms of "winning" and "losing" is YOU. I (and, in my opinion at least, everyone else on BOTH sides of this debate) have been trying to have an honest (if stupidly long-winded) debate to decide how to improve the article. If no-one's listening, it's because your unilateral, frustrating and stroppy behaviour has served to stifle the legitimate debate. Badgerpatrol 09:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I said was that the mediation was over, and you unloaded with the same tired distortions and personal attacks.  What purpose do you think this serves? Haber 14:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So, would you be willing to continue if another mediator from the Mediation Committee took the case?  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Provided they are actually committed to doing a decent job. Badgerpatrol 02:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Waiting for response from Haber (and anyone else with this page still watchlisted)....  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 03:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Badgerpatrol. Parsecboy 09:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If anything, this has shown the merit of a pure Axis vs. Allies listing. --NEMT 16:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What's your preferred alternative, Haber? Badgerpatrol 14:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In that case, I am sorry to close this mediation as unsuccessful.  For the Mediation Committee, Armed Blowfish (mail) 15:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: in america --NEMT 21:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean?  By "unsuccessful" I mean that it does not look like all the participants are happy with the result, something the Mediation Committee strives for.  I am not judging whatever result you reached in any other way.  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 23:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm also a bit puzzled- what do you mean, NEMT? Badgerpatrol 23:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: a non sequitur --NEMT 23:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, were you by any chance singing along to Kim and got over excited? If so, don't worry about it- happens to me all the time....;-) Badgerpatrol 03:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's actually a reference to a character from a youtube video series, he says it after everything. --NEMT 03:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  : )  Armed Blowfish (mail) 03:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Since mediation requires the consent of all parties, the parties may reject any mediator they do not feel comfortable with.  For the Mediation Committee, Armed Blowfish (mail) 16:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation over 

message: I noticed on your project page it says you are the mediator of WWII... that ended like a month ago. Might want to erase that.--LtWinters 18:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the atom bomb is the mediator of WWII. --NEMT 20:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, if you find any more mediation templates or transclusions of the mediation on these pages, feel free to remove them.  And if you all change your mind about trying mediation again with a different mediator, you are welcome to file a new request.  Thanks,  Armed Blowfish (mail) 04:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wwii mediation