|
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
- It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
- It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
- It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
- It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
- It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
- Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
- Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
- Sign and date your posts with four tildes "
~~~~".
- If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
|
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to using Wikipedia as a registered user, I'm mainly using it right now to resolve a dispute as I feel there is a bias statement on the article for Karl Marx and I think everyone should help keep Wikipedia neutral if they see something with a clear bias as it's one of the few websites on the internet which prides itself on being impartial and factual.
I apologise in advance if I make any mistakes or errors, please notify me if I do something wrong and let me know the correct way.
Just wondering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes I'm still here in the discussion! Thank you for all of your help and support with this issue, you seem to know a lot more about how the process works! It is frustrating RolandR keeps editing it back when he is the only one determined to keep it how it is while everyone else has been willing to compromise. Hutchski (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed - RolandR is a very experienced wiki disruptive editor - but just follow the process and avoid argumentative talk - kill them with kindness so to speak. He already violated WP:EDITCONCENSUS, is guilty of WP:HOUNDING, and for this also WP:SQS. So just let the RFC play out and I can help you with the technicalities and bureaucracy.
- One thing to remember, is he has you on his watchlist, so it is important to remember anything you do in Wikipedia, he will use against you in any arbitration. This is why I am making this statement also: I am helping you with the editing process and not attempting meat puppeterring (WP:PUPPET) or anything of that nature.
- Also - please report here any DNS Spoof or Poison attack you may have had (I just had one the other day - it attempted to get me to a fake Wiki welcome page). You can tell you had one when you try to search in google or something and you get a "page redirected" message with another site. If that happens take a screenshot of the site, especially the URL that shows and save locally. Then flush your DNS cache - as this is an attempt to do alot of bad things and get you banned (or worse things). Patriot1010 (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I've tried hard not to respond to his personal attacks and instead tried to focus on the issue. I'll definitely report any of those problems you mentioned. Thanks for all of the advice and help with the technicalities and rules, there's a lot to learn! Hutchski (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations, I think you just achieved what 1% can only do - Come to a consensus through RFC! Consensus achieved on your RFC! Nice Job!Patriot1010 (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha, to be honest it is mainly thanks to yourself and ArchivingContext that we managed to find a solution, otherwise I think this would have gone on for a long time! Thanks for all of your input, I'm glad a consensus was reached, especially as I noticed that around 10,000 people look at that article every day, that's quite a lot of people who were learning that Marx was one of the greatest economists of all time without any additional context or specification! The new edit is much more substantive and specific, I just hope Mr RolandR can accept it! Hutchski (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed!Patriot1010 (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow 10,000 people look at it a day?!? Where can I find that information? I am impressed with you extensive knowledge of of things like DRS too. Don't sell yourself short - you have amazing technical knowledge of Wikipedia also!Patriot1010 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, yeah I was quite surprised by that number as well! Stumbled across a 'page view statistics' link on the 'View History' tab of the article. http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Karl_Marx Hutchski (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow look at that - I have almost 3 times the views on my user page than RolandR! http://stats.grok.se/en/201303/User:Patriot1010 It just goes to show how little and insignificant he is, and users that use WP:EDITConsensus are superior. Not that "page hits" matter anyway though, everyone knows "page hits" are artificially inflated by bots and computer programs like RolandR is obviously doing. An "important" article is subjective, depending on the reader. At Wikipedia, care in editing is more important, in my opinion. Patriot1010 (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In a way, I feel sorry for RolandR, he is like a Pavlov's classical conditioning experiment, a rat tapping his little paw on the keyboard to get page hits and edits to receive a treat.....we gave him an electric shock and he behaved exactly as Pavlov predicted in his Conditioned Suppression theory...LOL.....oddly all the others behaved in a similar manner. Patriot1010 (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hahaha, that analysis made me laugh, you really don't like RolandR! At least he seems to have accepted the consensus for the time being Hutchski (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah - I think he's just kinda bizarre. Remind me to give you an e-hug (the man kind) soon! Patriot1010 (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow hutch - check out the page stats for name changes on Wikipedia - there were almost 2000 name changes on 01/23/2013...Gosh any Idea what happened that day? That's a 10,000% increase over the norm. http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Wikipedia:Changing%20username/SimpleI'm so glad you showed me the stats page Hutch! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest I have no idea how accurate it is but it's interesting to get estimates, especially on article pages! Hutchski (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
