| Revision as of 05:15, 9 May 2010 editAldrasto11 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,223 edits ←Created page with '{{medcabstatus |article={{SUBPAGENAME}} |status=New |date=~~~~~ |requester=~~~ |parties=<!-- List the main parties involved in the dispute --> |mediators= |comment=...' | Revision as of 05:24, 9 May 2010 edit undoAldrasto11 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,223 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| |article={{SUBPAGENAME}} | |article={{SUBPAGENAME}} | ||
| |status=New | |status=New | ||
| |date=05: |
|date=05:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| |requester=] (]) | |requester=] (]) | ||
| |parties=<!-- List the main parties involved in the dispute --> | |parties=<!-- List the main parties involved in the dispute --> | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| Now I discovered that the article has been renamed ''glossary'' and its content sweeepingly curtailed, especially on the most important entries (fas, ius, sacer, sanctus, templum). Not only the content has been reduced to almost nothing but what is now stated is arbitrarily picked up: the article does not offer a critical overview misleading the reader into believing the concept can be defined with certainty in (wrong) way. | Now I discovered that the article has been renamed ''glossary'' and its content sweeepingly curtailed, especially on the most important entries (fas, ius, sacer, sanctus, templum). Not only the content has been reduced to almost nothing but what is now stated is arbitrarily picked up: the article does not offer a critical overview misleading the reader into believing the concept can be defined with certainty in (wrong) way. | ||
| Moreover disproportionately threatening templates have been put on my original contributions, claiming the content is hard to understand and confusing. I think the article was not unintelligible although the langauge could have been improved. In fact everything I wrote comes from | Moreover disproportionately threatening templates have been put on my original contributions, claiming the content is hard to understand and confusing. I think the article was not unintelligible although the langauge could have been improved. In fact everything I wrote comes from specialists's works which I quoted regularly. | ||
| This section should explain where the problem is. Link to the articles where the dispute is taking place. | This section should explain where the problem is. Link to the articles where the dispute is taking place. | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| Just a list of the users involved. For example: | Just a list of the users involved. For example: | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| ====What is the dispute?==== | ====What is the dispute?==== | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| ====What would you like to change about this?==== | ====What would you like to change about this?==== | ||
| I am ready to accept changes to the article I wrote as far as readers would be able to have some grasp of the semantic and religious issues involved in the meaning of terms and wrong or partial definitions are eliminated. | |||
| Here, tell us what you would like to changed. Does the conversation need better structure? Are folks having difficulty communicating? Are they talking past each other? Stuff like that. | Here, tell us what you would like to changed. Does the conversation need better structure? Are folks having difficulty communicating? Are they talking past each other? Stuff like that. | ||
| Line 41: | Line 43: | ||
| ====How do you think we can help?==== | ====How do you think we can help?==== | ||
| Difficult to say, these people admit they have not researched the subject but some of them speak quite conceitedly. | |||
| We are here to help you, but we need to know how. Sometimes mediators will look at a dispute and have no idea where to start, so please help us out. Do note that we will not "take sides" in any dispute. | We are here to help you, but we need to know how. Sometimes mediators will look at a dispute and have no idea where to start, so please help us out. Do note that we will not "take sides" in any dispute. | ||
Revision as of 05:24, 9 May 2010
| Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | vocabulary (now glossary) of ancient Roman religion |
| Status | New |
| Request date | 05:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Aldrasto11 (talk) |
Request details
Help reach a solution about the article content.
Where is the dispute?
I started the article with the aim of providing the readers with an outline of ancient Roman religion through adetailed presentation of its main concepts. I worked on it for 2 months and wrote about 70% of what I planned.
As I am not a native English speaker nor an expert on the matter, even though I learnt Latin at school for nine years, I wrote on the discussion pages I welcomed help from other editors for the purpose of improving the quality of language. On March 28th I stopped editing.
Now I discovered that the article has been renamed glossary and its content sweeepingly curtailed, especially on the most important entries (fas, ius, sacer, sanctus, templum). Not only the content has been reduced to almost nothing but what is now stated is arbitrarily picked up: the article does not offer a critical overview misleading the reader into believing the concept can be defined with certainty in (wrong) way.
Moreover disproportionately threatening templates have been put on my original contributions, claiming the content is hard to understand and confusing. I think the article was not unintelligible although the langauge could have been improved. In fact everything I wrote comes from specialists's works which I quoted regularly.
This section should explain where the problem is. Link to the articles where the dispute is taking place.
Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:
What is the dispute?
A calm explanation of what the problem is. Be as precise as you wish, but avoid general statements such as "User:X has a POV regarding article Y", as that's usually unhelpful. Provide diffs if possible, but try to keep the description brief. A list of issues that need to be addressed, such as this, would also help.
What would you like to change about this?
I am ready to accept changes to the article I wrote as far as readers would be able to have some grasp of the semantic and religious issues involved in the meaning of terms and wrong or partial definitions are eliminated.
Here, tell us what you would like to changed. Does the conversation need better structure? Are folks having difficulty communicating? Are they talking past each other? Stuff like that.
How do you think we can help?
Difficult to say, these people admit they have not researched the subject but some of them speak quite conceitedly. We are here to help you, but we need to know how. Sometimes mediators will look at a dispute and have no idea where to start, so please help us out. Do note that we will not "take sides" in any dispute.