| Revision as of 02:42, 11 February 2014 editMediationBot (talk | contribs)5,654 edits A request for mediation which you are a party to has been accepted← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:34, 18 February 2014 edit undoDavidbena (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users57,076 edits →Request: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| <small>(Delivered by ], ] the Mediation Committee.)</small> | <small>(Delivered by ], ] the Mediation Committee.)</small> | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Request == | |||
| Ignocrates, I agree with your conclusion on Talk:Matthew that the consensus on Misplaced Pages is as you have described so well and so succinctly on that thread. I will not pursue the issue further, other than request that the door for dialogue remain open in the distant future, in the event that other definitive research can be produced with convincing analysis, in which case, we will make these findings known to the editors for their review and re-assessment. Meanwhile, the current article ] is good, and hardly needs revising. The view taken by the editors is, indeed, the contemporary view of most scholars of biblical text criticism. It was a pleasure debating this issue with the WP team. All the best!] (]) 20:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:34, 18 February 2014
Archives
Workpages
Recusing myself again
I am recusing myself from editing on the Gospel of Matthew article and current or future articles that have anything to do with lost or hypothetical Hebrew Gospels of whatever. Also, any current or future articles about Oral gospel traditions or Christian oral traditions generally. Please don't post on my talk page about any of these topics. Ignocrates (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 February 2014.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Request for mediation accepted
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.
As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.
For the Mediation Committee, User:Sunray (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Request
Ignocrates, I agree with your conclusion on Talk:Matthew that the consensus on Misplaced Pages is as you have described so well and so succinctly on that thread. I will not pursue the issue further, other than request that the door for dialogue remain open in the distant future, in the event that other definitive research can be produced with convincing analysis, in which case, we will make these findings known to the editors for their review and re-assessment. Meanwhile, the current article Gospel of Matthew is good, and hardly needs revising. The view taken by the editors is, indeed, the contemporary view of most scholars of biblical text criticism. It was a pleasure debating this issue with the WP team. All the best!Davidbena (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)