User talk:Icelandic Viking POWER

This page is intentionally left blank.

Icelandic debt referendum: mediation

Recently, a request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010 was filed with the Mediation Committee. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. (See also: Wikipedia:Mediation.) Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010 and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Thank you, AGK 17:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for mediation concerning Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010, to which you were are a party, has been rejected. Full details are at the case page (which will be deleted after a reasonable time). If you have any queries, please contact a committee mediator or the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 20:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)<

time to sort out the icesave / debt repayment / loan agreement dispute finally

hey there, this is just a bulk message inviting you to re-think the topic as was discussed more than 6 months ago and is still unresolved. feel free to jump here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Icelandic_debt_repayment_referendum,_2010#Time_to_settle_the_title_dispute.3F and help figure out how we can end this conclusively this time. --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification for section in Icesave dispute

One hour ago you undid my attempt of adding clarification for the chapter about the August 2009 bill in the Icesave dispute. I appoligy if my attempt to clarify was incorrect. Nevertheless, I think the help line actually reflect the written lines in the wikipedia section. So if it is wrong, you either need to reformulate the other lines in addition, or at least provide a source the claim you made in the edit history about additional transfer of "bank assets" making up for some of the 85% not being accounted for. At the moment I did not look into the issue at a more detailed level. But I can nevertheless see and understand the section is in a big need to get clarified. If you indeed posses some detailed knowledge about the case, then please help with adding some lines that helps to clarify the section, instead of just undoing my attempt for clarification. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You must have misunderstood those documents that you read, also you should consider that Original research is not to be published on Wikipedia and especially when it's based on a grave misunderstanding of the facts. Take a look at this http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have just reverted all the work I did to clarify the content, without any valid reason. This I just undid your undoing. You are welcome to question or improve the provided content, with extra references or notes if you think it is needed. So far my only contribution was to reflect the content of the already provided references, and then do a simple WP:CALC on the provided figures to put it into context. The listed references fully provide for my clarified lines. If you have extra details about additional assets comprising a part of the cash repayments, you should really add such additions with an appropriate reference. It is not enough that you just claim to have proof of it in the "Edit summary". Please try to build on my clarified lines, instead of just removing them. Danish Expert (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added an extensive reply at the talkpage, and will soon update the article according to that. The primary source for my reply, is the actual uploaded Althingi law. Your claim was according to the law not correct, but neither was the description provided by the first reference used in our WP article. Obviously the law is the strongest and best reference to use, so I will now update the articles section according to that. The article made benefit from our internal debate. But please try to approach other wikipedia editors with a bit more friendly attitude, another time when you disagree about certain content. Danish Expert (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]