Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story/Archive 1

message: Greetings to all parties, and my thanks for taking this step in a clear and defined effort to resolve this dispute, concering the inclusion of the three proposed external links, and one reference, in the article.
As a neutral and uninvolved party, I have no prior knowledge of this dispute; the method I would like to take in order to receive my background knowledge is through the First Stage of Mediation, as described below.
Once again, my gratitude to the parties in taking this step with an underlying desire to resolve this dispute; I invite all parties to review what they wish to get out of this dispute, as well as why they wish to get out of it, and how it would benefit Wikipedia.
Kind regards,Anthøny 18:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: My personal style of Mediation is to conduct discussion through "Three Stages of Mediation"; the first (Mediation Stage 1) encompasses statements by each party, detailing what they want to get out of Mediation, why and how their gaining of their wishes would benefit the page in question, as well as Wikipedia as a whole.
In order to minimise both rambling and irrelevance, I would like to condense these statements into small, at-a-glance overviews in the form of bullet points and summarising; therefore I would like to employ the format that I use in the majority of my mediation and Mediation cases:
===Statement by X===
My general attitude is <to have/not have the links above included>:
*I <support/oppose> the inclusion of Issue 1 (see above);
*I <support/oppose> the inclusion of Issue 2 (see above);
*I <support/oppose> the inclusion of Issue 3 (see above);
*I <support/oppose> the inclusion of Issue 4 (see above).
The reasoning of this is:
*<reason for the first bullet point>;
*<reason for the second bullet point>;
*<reason for the third bullet point>;
*<reason for the last bullet point>.
~~~~
Parties are asked to stick closely to this template; simply copy the above coding, edit the page, paste to the very bottom, fill in the details and save.
This information will be used for the second and third stages of Mediation; please refrain from making personal remarks, or comments about the conduct of the other party - this stage is about the content requested for implementation into the article.
Kind regards,Anthøny 18:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Stage 1 

message: My general attitude is to not have the links above included:
*I oppose the inclusion of Issue 1 (see above);
*I oppose the inclusion of Issue 2 (see above);
*I oppose the inclusion of Issue 3 (see above);
*I oppose the inclusion of Issue 4 (see above).
The reasoning of this is:
*that the article is only a summary of a conference, also lacking detailed referencing of any opinions/analysis and thus is not significantly useful to the wikipedia entry;
*that a review of a work that has a separate entry on wikipedia should not go on the author's page;
*that the review is an amateur work and highly POV in places/of mixed quality;
*that Professor Gao is not quoted expressing an opinion on the book in the entry and thus any reference to him is largely irrelevant.
John Smith's 20:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:John Smith's|John Smith's]]

message: Good evening (GMT time); apologies for my absence over the past few days, both here and on Wikipedia. Regretfully, this lack of editing will have to continue until further notice, mainly due to the fact that I'm simply too busy in real life to devote the time I'd like to at Wikipedia.
Hopefully I can continue Mediation soon, but until such times I'm going to place this case on hold (unless another Committee member wishes to take up my duties until such times as I can return.
Once again, my apologies and if you wish to contact me, email may be a slightly faster option: see my contact page for details.
Kindest regards,Anthøny 09:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediator Absence