The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Steel-cut oats3
The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.
[[Talk:Talk:Steel-cut_oats# see section discussion on groat, which is a copy of our conversation ]]
Issues to be mediated
What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.
Primary issues (added by the filing party)
1.What is a groat? There is a lack of an explicit definition of the word
2.To reiterate:My apologies for the reintroduction of this issue; I was unfamiliar with the format of this request form; I now included Matt Lunker talk page where we had "extensive discussion of the matter"; I placed it on his page because he was the one who took exception to my contribution. Please note, that I made three "good-faith attempts" to tailor the definition to accommodate his concerns, and every time an adverse determination was made, the article was reverted back to the previous version.
3 Maybe I was not clear, every time I try to meet his criteria, he shoots me down, as far as he is concerned if you want more information, one should click on the groat wiki-link; Before Wikipedia or even the internet was introduced to the general public, I found that articles employed a type of Socratic method, namely before discussing a matter in depth, one would define the terms that would be used through out the article. I understand, why a wiki-link would be used if one wanted more information. But if it over-used, it promotes a form of intellectual laziness, where a person does not take the time to develop their ideas so it can become more accessible. Now for a person who is just beginning to understand the subject matter, it is like asking some to look up a word they do not understand, and then find out it is explain in terms of other words they do not understand (sort of like a nested loop). I was under the impression that Wikipedia mission, is to make knowledge accessible to all, but it is hard to do if the other party decides the matter is closed.
4 If this is an inappropriate forum, please tell me specifically, what would be the more fitting option (in simplest terms what those options mean)
Additional issues (added by other parties)
Additional issue 1
Additional issue 2
Parties' agreement to mediation
If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.
This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.
Reject. For reasons given in previous filing. For other dispute resolution possibilities, see the list in the previous rejection statement. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 06:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
