Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/Mediation1/Archive 2

message: A Nuclear Regulatory Commission source on Chernobyl is .  We should use this one. Simesa 22:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Government Source on Chernobyl

message: Ed, I must protest Benjamin's recent actions.  I posted detailed information on a position I have taken and he took it upon himself to "summarize" my comments.  Primarily I find this stunningly inappropriate, but it also makes it that much more difficult for me to assume good faith. 
As I understand the way mediation works, the mediator summarizes positions held.  Not an editor's main antagonist. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
The Post was inserted in the midst of my reply (not at the end) and had the effect - i felt - of decimating my reply paragraph with nearly personal attacks and text dumps from past lives as well as from the policy pages - i tried to preserve the salient points - but i don't object to the edit being reverted - it was a gentle suggestion in the name of focus - note that i have mercilessly compressed my own paragraph. Benjamin Gatti
:In general, refactoring of others' comments is permitted. But when they object, it might be better to revert. I had this experience myself just this month (!) with Guettarda, but we worked it out fairly well. (I think the mess is still on my talk page; it involved the use of strikeout markup to his comments on William Connolley.)
:I'm happy to use myself as an example, both of what to do and what not to do. You can learn from my successes and failures. Uncle Ed 18:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
::I wouldn't have minded if Benjamin had started in another section and summarized my comments there for the purpose of responding to them rather than altering them in the permanent record, but not like this.  I'd like to state at the outset that I would prefer my comments to be left intact, and I'll extend the same courtesy. I didn't mean to alter the structure of your comments in any kind of negative way, so I apologize if you had that perception.  I'd be glad to instead just move my comments into another section so your original comments aren't broken up.  · Katefan0(scribble) 18:33, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
:::I did just that; hope it's satisfactory. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
::::I would ask that Kate not extend the curtesy and instead participate in the refactoring - the four of us are each subject to bloat and if we're to accomplish the goal here - we'll need to reduce this conversation to the most salient details - but let's move on. (As a general rule - replying AFTER a signature is appropriate - a new section is not necessary - replying within a signed paragraph however is problematic at best) Benjamin Gatti
:::::Regretfully, I can't agree to allowing editors to change other users' comments.  I will, however, try to keep my comments concise. I also disagree with removing the information; however if you want to place it toward the top of the page so it's archived first I wouldn't be opposed. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
::::::I Move that this section be struck as it has served its purpose and is not related to any issue listed in the mediation summary. Benjamin Gatti 19:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Ed Poor 

message: Well, it is somewhat problematic, since that article is broader than just the Act, of course, as in the science itself (many countries), and it being protected prevents editors from wroking on it in ways totally unrelated to the dispute over the Act. I'll reprotect it, but I'm going to give Ed a pointer, and am inclined to follow his opinion on this. I should have done that to begin with. My apologies. El_C 23:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Practical Proposition 

message: Perhaps we should each state which parts of the article we feel need changing.
I'm happy with paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.  Paragraph 9 is a repeat of paragraph 7.  Paragraphs 12 and 13 repeat the current paragraph 4.  So add in 5 the NRC reference I found, merge 9 with 7, and trim 4 to say simply: "The Act makes available a pool of insurance funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages (but see Criticisms). In the Act, each power reactor must pay up to $88 million in the event any of them has an accident."
Not perfect, but close enough. Simesa 10:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Article

message: We aren't getting very far at "crossing off" things we can all agree with, or making progress where we disagree.  Benjamin, as the main objector, has listed a number of things he disagrees with that I quite frankly am not sure how to answer, one because I don't have a firm grasp of his objections and two because it's too much to wrap your head around all at once.  I think we may 1) make more progress and 2) have a more structured discussion if we start taking the article line by line.  It's time consuming but I think may eventually be good for the mediation, because it would help us see some concrete progress and also help us deal with issues as they arise, one at a time.  I propose we discuss each sentence and either approve it or talk about how each member would like to see it modified.  I would also propose that we not introduce new concepts at this time.  Let's work on what the article says now before we deal with issues that anyone thinks should be added.  That can be done later.  What do you think? · Katefan0(scribble) 15:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
:Let's create an alternate version, to consist only of portions from the main article which each mediant (is that a word?) can agree on. We could start with The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act provides insurance guarantees for the US nuclear power industry. Uncle Ed 15:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
::I agree. Simesa 16:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An humble (but time-consuming) suggestion