No article found for “Ringit?action=edit&redlink=1”.

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lift (force)

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗
Resolved:

Participants agreed on a resolution, as discussed here and in a separate RfC

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

Lift (force)

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.
Editors involved in this dispute
  1. Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) – filing party
  2. Burninthruthesky (talk · contribs)
  3. Steelpillow (talk · contribs)
  4. J Doug McLean (talk · contribs)
  5. Mr swordfish (talk · contribs)
  6. SPACKlick (talk · contribs)
Articles affected by this dispute
  1. Lift (force) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

There has been extensive discussion on the article talk page, Talk: Lift (force). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC) See Talk:Lift (force)/Archive 8 and multiple RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

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. There are continuing disputes about to what extent and where to provide a qualitative description or a quantitative description, and about the amount of technical detail that is required in each part of the article.
  2. Other editors can provide a more detailed listing of the issues.
Additional issues (added by other parties)
  • To fill in some detail. A section on Simplified physical explanations of lift on an airfoil introduces two such. The subsection on Flow deflection and Newton's laws is the core of the dispute. At present it gives a quantitative statement which expresses the direct application of Newton's laws. This quantitative statement has been challenged as downright wrong, and it is being argued that it should be watered down to a qualitative description of the principle. It is this challenge that lies at the heart of the dispute and is preventing progress on other issues. (If I have given too much detail here, please let me know and I will cut it back) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 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.
  1. Agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Agree. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Agree. SPACKlick (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Agree. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Agree Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Agree. J Doug McLean (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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.
  • Accept This case is accepted for mediation. I will now put out a call for a committee member (or perhaps a nominee for membership) to take the case, but if no volunteer appears within a week, the case will be retroactively rejected for lack of a mediator. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.