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)
The source to indicate the value for the Portuguese empire is wrong, and should be replaced with the actual value.
The source used in most of the article is unreliable.
The sources used to contradict the value given for the Portuguese empire are reliable.
lack of historical knowledge on the empires of Portugal and Brazil, which leads to preformed ideas and prejudice towards Brazilian and Portuguese people
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.
Disagree for now. There is ongoing discussion on the talk page which I would describe as moving forward (albeit perhaps slowly), and I therefore consider this to be premature (see WP:RFM/G#PRIOR). Furthermore, there is an ongoing AfD, which I think makes use of this venue at this time inappropriate (through no fault of the the filing party, since the AfD was started after this request for mediation was filed). I would be willing to reconsider if the outcome of the AfD is that the page is kept and the discussion on the talk page stagnates. TompaDompa (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am at a loss to understand the issue around the Ballon animal article since none of the parties have been involved in that article. Perhaps the filer could elaborate for future reference. Since none of us have edited this article, I will assume it is some mistake on the part of the filer, or an attempt at some humor. -- Work permit (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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. Failed to satisfy prerequisite for mediation #5 "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation". For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
