Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 120
This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 115 | ← | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | → | Archive 125 |
The Selfish_Gene
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If after extensive discussion has occurred you cannot come to agreement, feel free to refile here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This is a dispute on the title "Selfish Gene". I edited the issue with the new info from a book http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-wonder-of-cultured-cells-super-selfish-johnson-gao/1113796730?ean=9781462699933. Mr. Dodi 8238 deleted my edit with the main reason that it is not related to Richard Dawkins' book. Obviously "selfish Gene" shall not only use Richard Dawkins's idea, which formed 30 years ago. As the advance of science, the Richard Dawkins' idea becomes in complete. I added the following words in my editing. Johnson K. Gao stated further on the advantage of "selfish Genes" in the process of Natural Selection in his book[3] From page 8, line 10 to page 9, line 6: --- “selfish” gene (the genome type of it could be temporary expressed by SS or Ss and ss), and/or a “greedy” gene (GG or Gg and gg), and/or, an “invading” gene (II or Ii and ii), and/or all of those three genes in a single cell. If the cell is not selfish (recessive genome type of ss), or, not greedy (gg), or, not invading (ii), it is impossible for that cell to internalize so many nano-gold assembled agarose-gelatin microbeads into its body. The human body consists of enormous single cells. Our personal character is manifested by the integrity of the character of many single cells. Suppose that the nature of human cells is similar to the cultured cells shown in the above picture, in which those cultured cells could be a reasonable demonstration of the domination of selfish gene SS or Ss, greedy gene GG or Gg, or, invading gene II or Ii, and if the Darwin’s law of Natural Selection is correct, then, that kind of cell will have the opportunity to survive. On the contrary, if the individual cell is of less selfish, or, more intended to be sacrifice, i.e. the genome type of ss, gg and ii, which will show disability in phagocytosis (or, the cell refuses eating, or, tolerates hungry), that kind of cell could have been starved to death or far earlier to be perished from the Earth--- Have you tried to resolve this previously? I hope that Mr. Dodi 8238 will not keep the openion that other people could not edit the "Selfish Gene" besides the Richard Dawkins' book. How do you think we can help? Wiki should let every one to edit. Not "One person's forum. Summary of dispute by Dodi 8238I think this comes down to two things:
Maybe "Selfish gene" and "Selfish genes" should be redirected to Gene-centered view of evolution? This way, people who search for these terms wouldn't confuse The Selfish Gene as being an article about selfish gene theory. This is something that could be discussed on Talk:The Selfish Gene. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC) [edited 13:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)] Summary of dispute by JohnuniqDodi 8238 has given a good summary of the situation. I would not change the redirect Selfish gene because the book is extremely well known (for those with an interest in the topic), and "selfish gene" is a phrase irrevocably associated with the book. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC) The Selfish_Gene discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Zourafa
Issue has been resolved, or at least discussion will continue on the relevant talkpage, and the filer has requested a close of this discussion. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 16:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Gts-tg on 23:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The Zourafa article has been recently created and incorporates some content from the el:wiki article. I have placed a tag in the discussion page to indicate so, however the person that wrote the en article, as well as a 2nd person that came to the discussion, are against having the tag in the discussion page denying that there is any content that has been incorporated, and as a result an edit war is in place in the discussion page. Especially the second user (RexxS) is coming off very strongly against the tag inclusion and , although it is evident to me (I wrote the original el article after doing a lot of research) that content has been included from the el article as well as sources. I have no idea why they come off so strongly against the tag. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Asked to discuss first before removing the placed tag, and mentioned that it does not need to be a 100% translation of the article in order to incorporate content from it. There are sources and sentences that have been taken verbatim from the el article. I also mentioned that it is NOT a bad thing to have done so, but attribution should be provided where it is due. How do you think we can help? Firstly, explain what the case is for using the Template:Interwiki_copy template, and secondly if possible offer a personal non-enforceable opinion on whether the tag is rightly applied in the particular instance. Summary of dispute by RexxSThe article Zourafa was created by Alakzi on 7 July 2015. Article history. Alakzi is the only substantial content contributor to the article; other edits have been minor or maintenance. Alakzi is an experienced editor and knows well the importance of attribution where it is required. He maintains that he independently created the article; if he had copied parts of the article from the Greek article el:Ζουράφα, he would have included attribution. On 21 July 2015, Gts-tg added a tag to the talk page claiming that "This page incorporates content from Ζουράφα, a page hosted on another Wikimedia Foundation project." Despite his insistance that others discuss their edits first, Gts-tg placed this tag without any prior discussion, and - more importantly - without even having the courtesy to ask Alakzi if he had copied content that needed attribution. In claiming that the article contained copied work, he clearly makes the accusation that Alakzi was passing off other editors' contributions as his own. That is the definition of plagiarism and I was disturbed to see that Gts-tg was willing to make that kind of slur on another editor in good standing without even bothering to check first. Having reviewed both the English and Greek articles, and finding no evidence of copying, I treated Gts-tg's placing of the tag as a bold edit, so I reverted it and immediately opened a discussion on that talk page. Gts-tg's response was to edit-war by re-reverting. Since then he has further edit-warred by replacing that tag three times. I have since removed the tag twice and Alakzi once. On 24 July 2015 he also accused me of removing the tag "without talking first" - despite the fact that I followed BRD and discussed my original revert as I made it. Despite having been asked to provide the evidence of copying, Gts-tg has consistently failed to quote even a single sentence that would support his accusation of plagiarism. When someone makes that sort of claim, the burden must fall upon them to provide evidence. The island, the subject of this article, is tiny and uninhabited and not many sources exist, so it is not surprising that there is some overlap of references. Nevertheless, anyone can compare a translation of the Greek article with any of the versions in the English article's history and see that no copying has taken place. This has moved far beyond a content dispute as Gts-tg's behaviour throughout has been tendentious and I shall be seeking sanctions against him. I would be grateful if a third party would be kind enough to review the talk page and compare Zourafa with el:Ζουράφα. Absent any compelling evidence of copying by Alakzi, I would like to see confirmation that the tag is inappropriate and that Gts-tg ought to apologise for the aspersions he has cast on Alakzi's contributions. --RexxS (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by AlakziRexxS has got me well covered, though I've still got a flicker of hope that we'll see eye to eye with Gts-tg and nobody's gonna have to be sanctioned. The filer maintains that I copied parts of the Greek article, which I did not; absent of any evidence to the contrary, I don't know what more there is to say. Alakzi (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Zourafa discussion
|
Talk:Grand Slam_Championship#Section_removal
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia (including WP:RFM, see prerequisite to mediation #4), DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview There has been an ongoing problem involving User:Vjmlhds removing content from the article. I addressed the user and their conduct in a section made June 15, but they have neglected to participate in it, even though they were pinged and should therefore be aware of it. They have participated in the talk page in 2010, 2012 and 2013, and even recently replied June 8 to a section made June 2, so I expect Vj knows how to participate and is opting not to do so. WP:NEGOTIATION has been valuable between myself and User:HHH Pedrigree in making us understanding of each other's reasons for wanting certain changes, but I have not been able to further this with VJ. Per WP:DISPUTE I have focused on content and repeatedly disengaged, not wanting to start an edit war, hoping they would stop. However they actively monitor and keep deleting information from the page. I don't know if the next step should be WP:RFM but I figured I would appeal on the noticeboard first. VJ's reversions have been dismissive and rude:
As you can see, this all began June 8th when he reverted to his revision 664126588 from May 26, itself a reversion to a revision 662750616 from May 17 by HHH Pedigree. VJ has even gone so far as to call my edit "unconstructive" through a warning notice on my talk page. The template instructs me to engage the user in conversation in the talk page, even though I did exactly that and was not replied to. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have brought the issue up repeatedly on the talk page and left extensive edit summaries explaining the reasons for edits. How do you think we can help? I would like some uninvolved viewpoints on the value of including or excluding certain information as we disagree on its importance here. Summary of dispute by VjmlhdsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Grand Slam_Championship#Section_removal discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Ubiquinol#Therapeutic Uses of Ubiquinol
I'm going to send this one back to the article talk page for additional discussion. There's been quite a bit there already between the requesting party and Alexbrn and Jytdog, but it appears that Jytdog and the requesting party had pretty much agreed that the source could be used under MEDRS when Ronz came in and opposed. Before this comes here, I think that we at least need to encourage a discussion between Jytdog and Ronz (and preferably Alexbrn) about the source and MEDRS. If that doesn't happen in at least the next few days, or if it happens but is inconclusive, then this can be relisted here. I'm also going to ping Doc James, who I often call upon when I have MEDRS questions, to see if he might like to take a look at this and weigh in at the article talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I inserted data about a characteristic of Ubiquinol which is a possible use of the drug https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubiquinol&curid=11212543&diff=673651112&oldid=673641926 I have been reverted. I was reverted before because user Alexbrn claimed my sources were not reliable. I tried two times for different data until finally I have presented a pubmed indexed reference exactly as opposing users asked me on reliable references noticeboard and on talkpage. One of them has reverted again and I shall dispute this. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page discussion and reliable sources noticeboard. How do you think we can help? Please assign us a neutral volunteer as some editors are prejudiced that data being inserted may be promotional or not reliably sourced. I have updated my reference to good one and changed the data to match their objections but an editor has still removed it and called expert MEDRS review a speculation. I shall dispute this. Summary of dispute by RonzPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by JytdogPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by AlexbrnPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Ubiquinol#Therapeutic Uses of Ubiquinol discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
It would appear that Jytdog, Alexbrn and Ronz have not managed to get over the lack of understanding, (by what appears to be a newbie at first glance, judging by behaviour, and is certainly a SPA who first registered about a year and a half ago,) who still doesn't understand MEDRS, or that all editors mentioned as part of a dispute here should be notified by the OP, whom I will now notify. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 10:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Melbourne
An RFC is pending as to which of two image montages to use in the infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I have constantly tried to come to a resolution regarding a Melbourne, Australia infobox montage. The current one has a skyline photo that is far too dark and busy to be compressed into a tiny montage, not to mention it's a decade old. Secondly, I have tried numerous times to meet a compromise with a particular editor (User:HappyWaldo) about changing it, but he promotes the belief that there's nothing wrong with the current one. I like change, particularly if it involves resolving problems. I have a problem that the current montage is outdated, and that there needs to be a bit of variation in what it depicts. I came to Wikipedia believing it was a collaborative effort where every edit is welcome, within reason and so long as the edits improved the article or added something relevant. But HappyWaldo very often disputes and reverts changes I make, making things a bit uninviting. He seems to like to promote discussion, suggesting that I should "take it to the Talk page", yet every time I do this, he's the only one with a problem about my changes. Other editors seem to be okay with the montage proposals I've made. I just added my montage into the page, but I assume he will revert it sometime soon. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've taken the discussion to the talk page. Asked for his reasoning on why there's a problem with my edits (his complaints are always arbitrary and incidental criticisms like "it's too stretched", it's an "awkward angle", etc.) Mostly subjective criticisms, as criticism usually is by nature. How do you think we can help? I think you can decide yourselves which montage you think suits this article on the basis of how contemporary the images are (Melbourne's skyline is changing dramatically, which is why I introduced a new skyline panorama), how inviting and attractive it makes the city seem, what it depicts (the aerial of the stadium was my idea, he initially opposed it, and the image of the parklands has also been opposed by him, yet I think it's crucial because Melbourne's well known for its greenery. Summary of dispute by HappyWaldoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
"HappyWaldo very often disputes and reverts changes I make" As I reminded Ashton on the Melbourne talk page: "... you've changed and added more images on the Melbourne page than any other user. Count them. The idea that there's some kind of unspoken policy of 'stagnancy', or that I'm out to revert all your edits, is simply not true." This went unacknowledged. I have tried complimenting Ashton on some of his work on the Melbourne page in an attempt to encourage him and build cordial relations, but this also went unacknowledged. "... he's the only one with a problem about my changes. Other editors seem to be okay with the montage proposals I've made." It's clear from the Melbourne talk page that users YuMaNuMa, Brycehughes, HiLo48 and Elekhh oppose your image changes. The only user to support one of your montage proposals is Saruman-the-white. I have probably been more persistent than anyone in opposing some of your edits to the Melbourne page for reasons stated in edit summaries and on the talk page. Why? Someone has to. I don't want to see another article fall into disrepair. "... the aerial of the stadium was my idea, he initially opposed it" My initial response: "The proposed MCG image isn't bad. I'm all for changing the montage if better images can be found." It is Elekhh who opposed (and still opposes) the aerial shot of the MCG. I added the aerial shot to the current montage in an attempt to appease Ashton. My arguments for the current montage and against Ashton's proposals are all on the Melbourne talk page and in edit summaries. I have only ever asked for discussions per WP:BRD. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by YuMaNuMaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by BrycehughesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by HiLo48Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ElekhhPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ashton 29 has been for long pursuing changes to images in Melbourne related articles. At times this went unopposed, but many other times he/she persisted despite opposing arguments. At times sock-puppets were used. In the current dispute Ashton 29 seems to ignore arguments by others, and not following WP:CIVIL in his interaction with User:HappyWaldo. When proposing changes, claims regarding the qualities of the alternative images are often inconsistent. For example it is argued that the skyline needs to be changed because it is already '8 years old' although earlier the argument was that Federation Square shouldn't be included because 'has only been around since 2002'. The skyline image is apparently too dark, but in one of the proposals another dark sunset image was added. While probably everyone agrees that there cannot be a perfect montage that shows all key aspects of a city, a consensus is hard to reach when arguments are ignored, and when multiple issues are conflated, such as the (1) content of the montage (what is being represented), (2) the particular perspective chosen to show a building and (3) the quality of the image. I suggest discussing these one-by-one could help find consensus. --ELEKHHT 04:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Saruman-the-whiteI am not a resident of Melbourne, so you might say that I am less 'emotionally invested' in this debate, however it also gives me the perspective of an objective outsider who has visited the city on many occasions. The reason for my supporting Ashton's proposal is that, from my perspective, the current montage does not even begin to do the city justice. The skyline photo, which is the most important photo in the entire article, is completely dark and indistinct. It could be a picture of any skyline at night, and it does not show anything of the geography and landscape of the city, or even any detail of the attractive and quite distinctive high rise buildings on the skyline. In short, I could not think of a skyline photo that does a worse job of showcasing the city's distinctive, recognisable skyline. Even an outsider from Brisbane like myself knows that the most recognisable view is that taken from Williamstown, for example. In addition to this, the remaining photos are largely dull and uninspired. Ashton's proposal makes use of better photographs than those that currently exist.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Melbourne discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Opening statement by moderatorI am willing to take this case as volunteer moderator if the editors are agreeable to settling the dispute over what image to use via a Request for Comments, with my own role being facilitating the posting of the RFC. If multiple editors do not want an RFC used, then I will withdraw as moderator and request that a different moderator take the case. Are the editors willing to rely on an RFC? If so, there will be brief discussion of what images to use in the RFC, followed by the actual RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC) The infobox has a montage of six images. The first one, of the Melbourne City Centre, appears to be the focus of the dispute. Are there other images in the montage that are also questioned? Can the editors provide links to alternate montages that they would like included in the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Talk:YoungStartup Ventures
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview 1. this article has been created with the sole intent of portraying this company in a negative light. the first "article" referenced is not even an article. it is an email exchange and opinions of someone that was allowed the forum to bad mouth this company. Why would Wikipedia allow for this to happen? 2. the piece has many facilities, both based on what the company charges and how they conduct business 3. the top section is "criticism" even though the company has been around for over 15 years, has tons of testimonials, video highlights and world class keynotes, other REAL articles yet this is the best description? 4. why should this company even be listed on wikipedia? 5. why is it that some companies can have a proper description written and then be closed to edits, while these vandals can write whatever they want?
Have you tried to resolve this previously? have modified to something that is a real company description, with ought this unfair tone of slandering this company. this is really not something wikipedia should allow people to do. it doesn't make sense. How do you think we can help? please step in and take a stand against this crime. it is unfair. 1. please change your rules. it is not ok that anyone can simply g in a create a company profile. you need to realize that people are trying to harm their competitors with this and the fact that people are hiring themselves out for writing articles doesn't help. there should be strict guidelines of how a company profile must be written. if you allow a "criticism" section then it should exist by every single companies profile Summary of dispute by BgwhitePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MagioladitisPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by yosefemetPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Zach VegaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:YoungStartup Ventures discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Yishai Schlissel#West_Bank
Closing at the request of Zigzig20, because dispute resolution is optional. The current version of the article does appear to comply with guidelines; compliance with guidelines is not optional. If there is further need to discuss content, it can be done at the article talk page, and, if that fails, by a Request for Comments. Any conduct issues can be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The text, as it currently stands, refers to the "West Bank, also known as the Judea and Samaria Area." Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank), this should be simply "West Bank". User:Zigzig20s thinks there is should be special exception to the guideline (which represents a consensus reached after an ArbCom case on the issue) because of the context. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Just the talk: page. How do you think we can help? We've come to an impasse. Summary of dispute by Zigzig20sPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Yishai Schlissel#West_Bank discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
It appears that the question is whether to add the phrase after West Bank, "also known as the Judea and Samaria area". Is there any other issue? If the issue is whether to add the phrase "also known as the Judea and Samaria area", and there is a naming convention listed above, what is the reason for disregarding the naming convention? The naming convention, which was developed under ArbCom guidance in order to avoid persistent conflict, says that in modern references, "Judea and Samaria" should only be used in special contexts. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
|
User talk:RobertACavendish#Republic of Aquitaine
Resolved, or maybe abandoned by filing party. May be refiled if filing party resumes editing and wishes to continue. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview RobertACavendish has been adding content in several locations about the "Republic of Aquitaine", a micronation. I have reverted several of these additions at Micronation#Alternative governments, and have rejected a "protected edit request" at List of micronations based on the fact that no reliable sources are available for this micronation. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I opened a dialog with RobertACavendish at his talk page to attempt to resolve the issue. After a brief discussion, he ended the discussion rather abruptly. How do you think we can help? I would like disinterested third parties to evaluate RobertACavendish's additions regarding the Republic of Aquitaine to ascertain whether they should remain or be deleted. Summary of dispute by RobertACavendishPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:RobertACavendish#Republic of Aquitaine discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I am not familiar with how to respond to everything you have made notations on. However, there are a few that are lacking. Your retort to most responses have not always been kind nor professional. I ended our discussion abruptly as you have said, because we were going back and forth... and not getting anywhere. Then you basically threatened me, saying that you would would bring all this to a higher level... and anything I would post in the future, YOU would be the first to suggest it be deleted. I responded by asking you to bring this to a higher level because I think you are letting your emotions guide you in your moderation. I agreed that the one article I would attain more sources for, however I felt that my other article had merit to be listed. Hence why I ASKED YOU TO BRING THIS TO A HIGHER LEVEL. Moderators, please look at all the corresponding texts back and forth, not just the ones that Wiki61 pulled out to make it seem as if he has been giving me all the information needed, and being nothing but helpful during this entire ordeal. I feel taking his recommendations for the one article, and deleting it myself (so it is a non issue) shows that I am interested in abiding by the wiki standards. I ended the conversation, because he didn't want it out in the open... which I didn't know about. So I ended the conversation. Yes it was abrupt, however I didn't know how to end it any other way with out being harassed by him.
RobertACavendish (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I've moved RobertACavendish's comments to the "discussion" section where they belong.
WikiDan61 You mentioned that one of the major conventions to us being listed in the mocronation website was that we were not recognized. I would like bring your attention to the very first thing that pops up from wikipedia when you type in micronation:Direct link--> http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c151/Robert_Davis/Screen%20Shot%202015-07-30%20at%209.42.58%20AM_zpsc2nryur7.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertACavendish (talk • contribs) 14:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
WikiDan61 I'm sorry but if you go back over all of your notes from yesterday the biggest contention was that we were not a full recognized state or nation. You then mentioned that that was an article from google. Here are the first couple paragraphs from the official wikipedia micronation website.
You did also say in our correspondence yesterday that there were other micronations listed on the main wiki page that had lass citing or sources. I have not seen any of those taken down. So if we have more valid citations (roughly 8 - and yes some were from press releases that you don't accept), I find myself perplexed why our article was removed. I do understand the need for an independent wiki page, to be added unto the listing of nations. However this is not the article I am questioning. Micronations are distinguished from imaginary countries and from other kinds of social groups (such as eco-villages, campuses, tribes, clans, sects, and residential community associations) by expressing a formal and persistent, even if unrecognized, claim of sovereignty over some physical territory. RobertACavendish (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
WikiDan61 As you requested I re added the information that you deleted. I would like others to take a look at it and see if it belongs: Robert McClenon the direct link is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation#Alternative_governments RobertACavendish (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC) I, like Robert McClenon, am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Let me note that while I see the problem with this material, WikiDan61's standard for it is not correct. Notability is only a standard for whether articles should or should not exist as a whole, but as the lede of the Notability guideline specifically says, notability is not the test for whether information should or should not be included in an article. That being the case, whether the information could stand alone as an article if it survived a deletion discussion certainly might indicate that it could also be included in an article, but its failure to survive a deletion discussion would not indicate that it could not be included in an article. The basic tests of whether something should or should not be included in an article are Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons. Based upon the sources cited in the deleted material from the talk page discussion, I think that these inclusions — which have no non-PRIMARY reliable sources — fail the UNDUE subsection of the Neutral Point of View policy and the NOTSOAP subsection of the What Wikipedia is Not policy and should not be included here. Moreover, the currently cited sources cannot even be used as a PRIMARY source since they fairly plainly violate the SPS section of the Verifiability Policy, since their claims to sovereignty and, indeed, existence are both (a) exceptional claims and (b) claims about third parties which cause the ABOUTSELF exceptions to SPS not to apply. I see no reason to believe that, based on the current sourcing, this material can appear in Wikipedia. Whether it might be included if supported by sources acceptable to Wikipedia cannot be determined until those sources are added. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
24-hour closing notice: This dispute appears to be concluded. Unless someone objects to closure by 17:20 UTC on August 5, 2015, any volunteer may close this case as resolved. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Talk:Deathtrap (film)#Deathtrap/Sleuth plot similarity
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. The responding editor has, essentially, one brief edit in the discussion; that cannot be considered to be "extensive." If that editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here, but it's only been one day so he may well still respond. If consensus is not reached after extensive discussion, please feel free to refile here or use some other form of dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I added a sentence to the lead for this article stating that the film bears similarities to Sleuth (1972 film), also starring Michael Caine, and I provided citations to reviews by Roger Ebert, Janet Maslin, as well as several published books which explicitly note the similarities between the two films. Ring Cinema has repeatedly deleted all this information based on only his/her opinion that the similarities are "not particularly strong." Now he has also deleted this same information on the Sleuth (1972 film) article as well, verging on edit warring. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Provided more sources after info was incorrectly called "uncited". Asked on Talk page for policies, guidelines, or consensus that indicates this reliably sourced information should be excluded. Provided multiple examples of other film articles that mention similar films in their leads to demonstrate consensus that this kind of info is appropriate. How do you think we can help? Uninvolved editors to provide policy/guideline and precedent-based consensus on the appropriateness of including this reliably sourced information. Summary of dispute by Ring CinemaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Deathtrap (film)#Deathtrap/Sleuth plot similarity discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry#Honours Count?
Closed per the comments in the 24 hour closing notice. It appears that a general consensus has been reached as to how to develop and source the table at issue here, but the proposed solution is not unanimously accepted. Parties are advised to seek WP:Formal mediation in the event that editing disputes continue. North of Eden (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Filed by Chrisuae on 21:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview There is a table in the article in the Football rivalry section that was un-referenced and disagreed with other sources. I added references to football governing bodies FIFA and UEFA, plus the official Liverpool FC and Manchester United websites and some major media sites and mentioned the subtle differences of opinion on these sites. I believe this removed the bias inherent in the article. User PeeJay2K3 disagreed and reverted the edits with different reasons each time. I attempted to address these reasons on the talk page and received 3rd party backing for using FIFA and UEFA as references. In the latest change, the user has removed these references and reverted to the original table but added citations to the official club websites that do not match its content. References to FIFA, UEFA and major media sites were removed as was the paragraph mentioning the subtle differences in their data. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have attempted to address the concerns of the other user regarding formatting while still maintaining neutral and factual language and the references. How do you think we can help? Please provide guidance on the use of FIFA, UEFA and the official club websites as valid references. Also provide guidance on the use of the paragraph mentioning the subtle differences in the data provided by these sources. Summary of dispute by PeeJay2K3Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The original table may have been unreferenced, but now it is not. I firmly believe that objections were raised to the original table because it happened to place Manchester United ahead of Liverpool in terms of the number of honours the two clubs have won. Other editors have attempted to modify this by arbitrarily deciding that some honours are "major" and others not, picking and choosing from various sources such that their POV appears to be supported. As I have stated on the article talk page, different sources consider different competitions "major" and "minor", some do not distinguish at all. I even provided a source that accurately reflected the article as it was before this lame dispute started. But apparently the idea that Manchester United is a more successful club than Liverpool is one that some people just can't handle. – PeeJay 21:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by AutonovaFor simplicity, the question boils down to: which edit is more comprehensive, neutral, and beneficial to the article? This one, which is supported by Chrisuae and myself: [1], or the article's current state, which is supported by PeeJay. Autonova (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Talk:Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry#Honours Count?|Honours count? discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
24 hr closing notice
Discussion
Chrisuae (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae
In my opinion including the years/links is useful, but not strictly necessary. Likewise with the International/Domestic classification. However, the use of FIFA/UEFA as the reference to classify the trophies is paramount. The paragraph is also important to discuss the less prominent sources. Chrisuae (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae
References
|
Talk:MLS Soccer Sunday#July 2015: This article needs additional citations for verification.
There has been no participation in this dispute, even after a 48hr closing notice. This issue may be brought back to this noticeboard if the parties are still willing to work the issue out in the future. Regards, Scorch (talk | ctrb) 04:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Mikeylito on 05:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview There is a disagreement about the use of date formats in the article. I'm also not happy with the tone of the talk page discussion. I feel it was less than civil. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Once I was clear on what required cleanup, I went and resolved the issues with one exception which I addressed on the talk page. However, with explanation, I did revert the dates to dmy format as I originally posted the article. How do you think we can help? I am seeking additional opinions on what took place on this incident. I'm particularly disturbed because rather than explaining my original question on the talk page, the other editor just made wholesale changes without continuing the talk page discussion. Summary of dispute by Walter GörlitzPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The subjects, both the league and networks, are American and so should use MDY per WP:STRONGNAT. That's the format I applied: mdy. WP:DATERET takes a back seat to STRONGNAT as is seen from the second sentence of DATERET. As for civility, my tagging of the whole article was questioned so I removed the general tag and tagged specific sentences. I was then questioned as to why I changed date format and a lengthy response was made, which showed what I believed to be a misunderstanding of the MoS. I simply responded that STRONGNAT applied, as it does. No insulting. No edit warring. No incivility. I made no wholesale changes and I did continue talk page discussion. I made three explained changes:
Only after these changes were made did discussion start on talk page. I then changed the general tag to specific ones as described above, and realizing that the date format was wrong for the subject, applied the correct date format. I read the lecture incorrectly asserting DATERET and replied, then MDY again . I'd be happy to see revert whatever wholesale changes I made without discussing after I see what they are. I don't understand any of the complaints. I would suggest complainant read WP:OWN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Talk:MLS Soccer Sunday#July 2015: This article needs additional citations for verification. discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
48 hr closing notice
|
Talk:Royce Gracie#Royce Gracie_BJJ_matches
Seeing as CrazyAces489 has not edited in three weeks (and is semi-retired) and the other party has not responded in a few days, plus there being multiple other cases here awaiting discussion, I'm going to go ahead and close this dispute. If need be, it can be brought back to this noticeboard in the future. Regards, Scorch (talk | ctrb) 11:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by SubSeven on 01:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The (BLP) article in question is Royce Gracie, a former mixed martial arts athlete. The other party in the dispute, CrazyAces489, has been trying to introduce a large number of edits to this article over a long period of time. All of these edits. without exception, are in some way discrediting to Royce Gracie. I have opposed all of these edits as I find them to be unsourced or very poorly sourced.
Many discussions on article talk page and user talk pages How do you think we can help? Weigh in on whether CrazyAces489's contributions to the article represent a proper application of WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV Summary of dispute by CrazyAces489Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Royce Gracie#Royce Gracie_BJJ_matches discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Zindagi (TV channel)#Moving_forward
Two involved and essential parties have not provided statements, and no one has objected to the 24 hour closing notice I posted yesterday. This discussion may be reopened at any time if parties wish to return here. North of Eden (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Manoflogan on 05:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview The article in question List of programs broadcast by Zee Zindagi. The other party TheRedPenOfDoom has been trying to remove all the edits because he feels that any wiki page of networks that does not broadcast any original content should not exist. This is inspite of the fact that wikipages of networks that broadcast syndicated content are allowed to exist. The examples of that are AXN_(India)#Programs_aired_on_AXN_India ,[[22]] and List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TV_Land "TheRedPenOfDoom" thinks that they violate WP:Coatrack. In discussion WP:Articles_for_deletion/Lists_of_programs_broadcast_by_networks, nowhere does it mention that a wiki page containing a list of syndicated shows should not exist. For your reference, I also include his revisions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Zee_Zindagi&oldid=673316739. I request you to weigh in as to whether his constant vandalism is justified. I would also like to point out that "TheRedPenOfDoom" has been engaging in a constant edit war on numerous pages. See User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom talk page for more details about this. I would also like to point out that he has indulged in similar behaviour in the past on far more controversial topics WP:Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=639886639&oldid=639885634 and so an action like this is not new for him. Edit: Zee Zindagi is notable because it chose to broadcast programs from Pakistan. India–Pakistan_relations have been fraught with tension, wars and disputes from the time of its existence. Indian channels and content are officially banned in Pakistan and vice versa. See Indian_soap_operas_in_Pakistan and http://www.firstpost.com/india/stop-broadcast-banned-pakistani-channels-india-delhi-hc-centre-1789341.html from Pakistani and Indian perspective respectively. Zee Zindagi is the first Indian network to broadcast content produced in Pakistan to Indian audiences. That makes it notable in itself. I agree that it is a network owned by Zee Enterprises. But that does not mean that the wiki pages or wiki pages listing programming content should not exist. This is evident in the fact NBC_Sports is a wing of NBCUniversal_Television_Group. The wiki pages of each of wing of the NBCUniversal_Television_Group is allowed to exist. Many channels that broadcast syndicated content have a wiki page with a list of programs List_of_programs_broadcast_by_USA_Network#Syndicated. I have no intention for the Wiki Page to violate television guide. If "TRPOD" objects to any entries violating the rule, he can delete the entry with an appropriate comment, but it does not make sense to delete the entire wiki. Given that the other wiki pages listed above are allowed to exist, lists displayed in List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Zee_Zindagi should be allowed to exist as well. From the edit logs, it appears that only "TRPOD" seems to object, and no one else. He keeps continuing to edit the pages on the grounds of notability. He is the only wiki person, who thinks that the entries ought to be deleted because they are not "notable". Other users such as "CyphoidBomb" have updated the page. The user's only comment was all the entries should be referenced. I have no objective to that. I only object to the fact that "TRPOD" should have not have the authority to determine what entries are notable. All the entries have been listed with proper references. I have done that. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Based on his requests, I have included numerous references in my latest edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Zee_Zindagi&oldid=673123283. I was going to add more references until he deleted all the content on the page and added a redirect to another page. I offered alternate options in the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zindagi_%28TV_channel%29#Moving_forward, but he would not consider any other suggestion. How do you think we can help? I would like you to weigh in as to whether List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Zee_Zindagi wiki page content should be allowed to display a list of programs broadcast by the channel. I believe that it does not violate any rules or standards, given the evidence that other wiki pages are allowed to stand. Manoflogan (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)ManOfLogan
Summary of dispute by TheRedPenOfDoomI have added Divy(a)95 (talk · contribs) and Rockcommer (talk · contribs). I am not interested in participating in a discussion to settle applications of policy and scope with one editor only to have it undone by others. As stated on the talk page, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and provides encyclopedic information as validated by reliable third party sources. Much of the content being pushed into the articles fails basic Wikipedia content policy inappropriately being a WP:COATRACK about programs from which the supposed subject of the article has had no impact other than rebroadcasting, and in general turning Wikipedia into a free webhost and television guide for Zindagi , which itself has not really established that it is notable on its own, rather than being a wing of its parent company. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Divy(a)95Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RockcommerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Zindagi (TV channel)#Moving_forward discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither "taking" nor opening this discussion at this time as we are waiting to see if TRPoD will choose to participate by adding a dispute summary above (and I would remind the parties that participation in moderated content dispute resolution is always voluntary, not mandatory). I note, however, that notice and discussion appear to be adequate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Talk:Spiro Koleka
I am failing this discussion for at least two reasons. First, the filing party has been blocked for edit-warring. Second, the filing party and the other participating editors are talking past each other, and nothing is being accomplished. When the filing party comes off block, content discussion may resume on the talk page. Since this article is about a country in the Balkan region, any conduct issues, such as edit-warring, should be reported under WP:ARBMAC to Arbitration Enforcement, which is likely to be more effective than WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The dispute is about these points: Do not add to this section now that moderated discussion is underway. Add to the moderated discussion instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC) The following discussion 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. 1. They write that "Himara is a predominantly Greek region" This is incorrect, I gave official links to the National Census disproving it. Less than 25% are Greek. BUT, besides being incorrect, this is totally irrelevant and unrelated to the article. This article is neither about Himara nor Greece. It is about a man that was borth in neither of these two places. Therefore the two above-mentioned users were asked to remove this text as irrelevant, but they did not, they only used "Undo" after I did following their failure to provide historic backup for the contested references that they use. (Too easy to click "Undo" for them it seams) 2.They claim (from 4 books authored by the same person - Mr. Petiffer, a so-called expert on Balkan matters.) that Spiro Koleka was born in a ethnic Greek family. But this is entirely incorrect! His gravestone is written in Albanian letters and word-forming (not Greek), in addition there is a page on a peer-reviewed scientific encyclopedia (The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Albania, 1985, http://imgur.com/f7kLRxs) that explains that Spiro was born in a patriotic (meaning native) family. Also two more newspapers articles corroborate the same story. One written by a childhood friend and long time colleague (http://imgur.com/mAN9iW1 and http://imgur.com/gz1Srfm) and one written by the leaders of the political party he was a member of. They knew him better than someone that does not even care about minute details like this (Mr. petiffer). He also does not have any references in his books on the source of information about Spiro Koleka. I also challenged the two users mentioned above to go to the village of Vuno facebook group and ask the members (1300+, many are elderly people) there of the ethnicity of Spiro Koleka. This is not scientific, but if they really want to know the truth and don't believe that I am a family member (as if I collect marriage certificates from dead people born 107 years ago...) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have provided links to official sources (government websites), I have made pictures of Spiro Koleka's gravestone, I have provided scans of scientific publications (Encyclopedic material), I have scanned and posted Spiro Koleka's marriage certificate, scanned old newspaper articles from different sources and have discussed in great length providing knowledge and reason on the subject matter. How do you think we can help? Remove any text that is inaccurate. Do not consider material that has no official/historic references. This is a biography, the simple historical facts (birthday, birthplace, fathers name, ethnicity) about a man are not up for negotiation. They are what they are. If after studying the evidences provided, the dispute resolution board is unable to decide, then the texts that are controversial should be removed. These are easy to spot as it has the word "Greek" in it. Summary of dispute by ZoupanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Burridheut (talk · contribs) thinks he WP:OWNS the article. He is anti-Greek, downplaying the community in Albania, and most often uses terms such as "separatist propaganda". He claims four different references were written by one person, but has not proven this, or most importantly — refuted what they say. He thinks that the dubious 2011 census and the grave stone's lettering are WP:RS for WP:SYNTH.--Zoupan 13:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AlexikouaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ResnjariThe issue is roughly this. Spiro Koleka was a politician who held various high ranking positions within Enver Hoxha’s communist regime. Within the article it is stated that Spiro Koleka was of Greek origin. The sources used such as James Pettifer and others (which also cite Pettifer as a source origin) base this upon Koleka having been born in Himara (town) and due to the ethnicity of that town being Greek have drawn the conclusion that Koleka was Greek. Also the collection of villages (Orthodox Greek and Orthodox Albanian) in this small coastal region also colloquially bear the name of Himara due to Himara town being the biggest settlement (However in Albanian the region is known amongst Albanian speakers as Bregdet or the Coast by the Sea). Koleka was however born in Vuno village. This village in peer reviewed material is identified as being an Albanian Orthodox village or inhabited by Albanian Orthodox speakers (Nitsiakos and Kallivretakis, sources provided in Spiro Koleka talk page). And it is here where the dilemma lies. The main bone of contention, for editor Burridheut for example is that apart from originating from Vuno and having Koleka a relative, he feels that the sources have misinterpreted or simply just gotten the issue wrong regarding Koleka’s ethnicity. For Greek editors such as Alexikoua and Zoupan, the matter is that as Pettifer has published this material in peer reviewed works and as such those works referencing Koleka’s Greek identity should remain. They have said to Burridheut to provide peer reviewed sources that can be additionally added to say that other sources also state he is Albanian. Burridheut has not provided sources that would pass Wikipedia guidelines for determining a good source (e.g. a page about Koleka from an Albanian encyclopedia published during the Communist era. Communist era publications need to be treated with caution and one a one by one basis according to author and also due to regime interference at times in scholarship). I have said to Burridheut to get Albanian sources (post 1992) that can be additionally added and hence the Albanian position can be represented and it goes for other Albanian editors (If time is needed then fine and the issue can be revisited later only with those sources provided however). Burridheut though does not want any reference to Greek origins to remain in the article, however no peer reviewed literature has been provided at this point in time to correct the error and call Pettifer into question. Nor has Pettifer retracted in any of his works this statement about Koleka (and probably wont as it might call into question his scholarship). However from my part, the Greek origin material can remain as it is from a peer reviewed source and is thus in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. My issue with the article is this part of the sentence. "Himara, a predominantly Greek region" because it comes after the Vuno and implies that Vuno is inhabited by Greeks (when peer reviewed literature does not say this) especially when some of the sources have mixed Himara town with Himara region regarding Koleka's birthplace which was Vuno. If it stays however, the additional "Orthodox Albanian village (Kaliivretakis +Nitisiakos)" for Vuno needs to be added so neutrality is maintained considering that the sources are problematic regarding even Koleka’s birthplace. Beyond that things are fine as they are in line with Wikipedia guidelines.Resnjari (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC) 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.
Talk:Spiro Koleka discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Beginning of discussionI am accepting this case for moderated discussion. I don't know anything about the subject matter other than the article is the biography of a former Albanian communist politician. There appear to be questions about what to say was the ethnicity of the politician and what to say was the ethnicity of the region of Albania that he resided in. Are there any other questions? Would each of the editors please state briefly what he or she thinks is the issue? Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. Do not reply to each other at this time. Address your summary to me as the moderator. Once we have better identified what the issues are, perhaps we can talk about improving the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Second statement by moderatorWe will have to try sectioned discussion, because the editors so far are talking past each other rather than to the moderator. There are sourced statements that the subject was of Greek ethnicity. There are sourced statements that the subject was from a predominantly Greek region. Why should these statements be accepted, or why should they be removed? Be civil and concise, and comment on content, not on contributors. If these questions are not addressed constructively within 48 hours, this discussion will be closed as failed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Also, are there any other issues besides ethnicity? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Second statement by BurridheutThe source of Spiros alleged Greek identity is Mr. Pettifer. He has copied himself regarding this topic in all his books, included books coauthored with Mrs. Vickers. So there are several books of him stating the same, sometimes verbatim. So the source of this "news" is only one. That would not be a problem if the author was referring to something that is common knowledge, but this is not and he fails to provide any official records for Spiro coming from a Greek family. Not only there are no official records, but this information is used to build a whole theory as if Spiro Koleka was a rare species that survived and thrived through the Albanian communism despite being Greek. This is totally unfounded by any facts, it is a myth. I demand proof and there is none whatsoever. Second statement by AlexikouaMy thoughts can be summarised in the following points:
Second statement by ZoupanThe subject belonged to the Greek minority, which was openly suppressed (Albanianized) by the Albanian government. Despite this, individuals of the community rose to notable ranks in Communist Albania. As a representative of this circumstance, explicitly stated, I see absolutely no reason in having this removed. Alternate (speculative) views have been welcomed and encouraged in the discussion. There has been attempts to synthesize an "Albanian theory" into the article, however. The whole discussion has been disregarded by Burridheut, who was just blocked for personal attacks and edit-war, which is the main problem in this "dispute", halting constructiveness in the discussion.--Zoupan 20:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Second statement by Resnjari
|
Talk:Balochistan#Recent changes
This thread has been closed as an involved party is continuously making comments on user conducts despite multiple notices to comment on content. User conduct issues are not within the bounds of this noticeboard. This case may be escalated to other noticeboards which deals with user conducts. Feel free to open a new case if content dispute persists even after user conduct issues have been resolved. Closing this case as failed. Regards--JAaron95 Talk 17:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Filed by EdwardH on 10:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview On July 23rd, BoogaLouie expanded the "Governance and Political Disputes" section (diff). This was reverted by Rashidzaman786 and Zmaghndstakun, saying it violates WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK. I, BoogaLouie and CyphoidBomb have tried to ask them to give more details on why they think the content violates those policies and how the edits can put into an acceptable form. We have received just one short reply from Rashidzaman786, on July 31st, which was insufficient. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None How do you think we can help? By prompting Rashidzaman786 and Zmaghndstakun to explain, in detail, why they do not agree with the original edits and to help us turn the original edit into something acceptable. Summary of dispute by Rashidzaman786Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ZmaghndstakunPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I had a talk page disscussion over balouchistan Pakistan where my position was oposite from User Cyphoidbomb. All ended with a concensus. Now for another article Baluchistan I am here with User Cyphoidbomb on this DRN, but with out being relevant to another article's (Khyber Paktunkhwa) dispute (between me and User Jasimkhanum 10 on maintaning pre dispute version of article), Cyphoidbomb started persanol revenge game. 1. He misrepresented me on ANI read https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&type=revision&diff=675320060&oldid=675310006 2. He deleted pre dispute version of Khyber Pakhtunkha and took Jasimkhanum 10 side and voilated WP principle that in case of dispute a pre dispute version will be maintaned. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by BoogaLouieBasically agree with EdwardH and Cyphoidbomb. I should also say it is very frustrating to spend time and energy doing research, finding citations, and writing a section, cleaning up the article, see it reverted wholesale, spend more time asking questions on the talk page and then get essentially no response from Rashidzaman786 and Zmaghndstakun except wiki policy-jargon (WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK). (Here is a comparison of the original version and mine.) The irony is I was prompted to work on the Balochistan article by a suggestion from Zmaghndstakun (see here). --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by CyphoidbombThis is a continuation of a dispute that began at the Balochistan, Pakistan province article, which I became involved in in my capacity as a Wikignome. An IP user wanted to introduce content in that article about insurgencies, human rights violations, and economic strife. This was an irritant to some of the other regulars at this article, because they felt the user was pushing a POV. In this edit I took a stab at introducing this content in a neutral tone. After a series of edits by other users, my version eventually got removed. The IP started a RfC. After the IP was found to be a sock operator, the regulars started crossing out the IP's comments, which made the RfC a mess. In spite of the IP's sockpuppetry, I felt that his argument had merit and should be discussed—if human rights violations, economic strife, and insurgencies were affecting this province and could be reliably sourced, there should be a mention of this. I closed the RfC as a procedural issue (all of the strikethroughs made the RfC incomprehensible), opened a new RfC and copied all the non-sock responses to this new RfC. I notified a number of related WikiProjects: WikiProject Human Rights, Central Asia, Geography, History and so forth, to get the widest range of input. Users Rashidzaman786 and Zmaghndstakun, who didn't have many edits outside of this subject area, showed up and expressed their opinions at both RfCs, and became the most vocal opponents of this content, even when the regulars seemed to agree that some version of this content was appropriate for inclusion. Both editors, who I again mention have very few edits at the project but who have taken to throwing around terms like WP:COATRACK, made proclamations about the sort of content that was appropriate for inclusion: Rashidzaman wrote As for the debate about this content at Balochistan, Zmaghndstakun said explicitly at the RfC, Talk:Balochistan#Recent changes discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Astrology
An essential party has withdrawn from discussion; no consensus or agreement has been reached. North of Eden (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Cantelo on 16:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The book 'Secrets of the Last Nazi' is a best selling book in the UK, and cites lots of supposed 'evidence' that astrology is true. Since it is providing a major source of information for the UK public to present the case that astrology is true, I believe it deserves mention in the 'Astrology in Literature' section of the wikipedia page on 'Astrology'. My addition included references which established that the book was indeed the best selling spy novel in the UK, and referenced data from the book which allegedly 'prove astrology is true'. On the talk page, as requested, I provided several further mainstream and separate references confirming this. The alternative view claims that the book's best seller status does not matters, and to mention this status would be promotional. Further, it demands that, even though I have provided copious sources which provide mainstream validation that the book is about astrology, they are insufficient. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussed it on the Talk page, at length, failed to reach an agreement, then gone here. How do you think we can help? I want several experienced Wikipedia editors to look at this. They should look at the evidence in my original post on 'Astrology', and some/all of the external links provided. If they can come to a consensus on whether this is sufficient, or what further information and/or references is required, then they should say what it is. Then the paragraph on the book can be added to the Wikipedia entry on Astrology. Summary of dispute by AndyTheGrumpPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This request for dispute resolution is misguided on so many counts that it is difficult to know where to start. The assertion that the book is a 'best seller' has only so far been sourced to Amazon - on pages selling the book. No credible source whatsoever has been cited that states that the book is " a major source of information for the UK public to present the case that astrology is true" - unsurprisingly, since the book is a work of fiction. Blogs are not mainstream sources for anything. There has been no evidence presented that the book even meets Wikipedia notability standards, never mind evidence that it is relevant to a discussion of astrology in literature - the only legitimate grounds for inclusion. The astrology article discusses Chaucer, Shakespeare, Spenser etc in this regard - and cites secondary sources which discuss the topic in depth for the analysis. Adding WP:OR about random newly-published books to the section just because they include material about astrology would be entirely undue per WP:WEIGHT even if properly sourced, and would turn a good article into a collection of trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Astrology discussionI'm seeing more than enough discussion to begin a thread here, and am happy to moderate it. I see that Astrology is a good article; it's therefore quite important to make sure its content is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. My impression is that the literary and artistic works mentioned in the article are highly noteworthy and have received significant coverage for their astrological ties (e.g. Holst's The Planets). In other words, it isn't just a compilation of any work that has to do with astrology. Given this, our issue seems to be how, and indeed if, the "Secrets of the Last Nazi" book ought to be included in the article. Looking forward to hearing more from the parties. North of Eden (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Sam Kiley of Sky News, who is quoted as saying 'This is a remarkable and chilling book - a clever blend of addictive fiction and astonishing revelation.' Guardian columnist David Boyle, who says ‘Iain King has come up with a thrilling plot and an ingenious idea that has the possibility to turn everyone's ideas upside down and back to front.’ There is part of a quote from The Sun (United Kingdom), which sells 2.2m papers a day, and which reviewed the book. The quote says 'A BRILLIANT but unconventional academic races shadowy agents, a deranged killer and power-mad priests to expose a vast conspiracy... romps along at a ferocious pace.' I can't find an online source for the Sun from when this review was printed, so I can't get the whole review. This blog from a literary critic which says "King introduces facts and dates to substantiate his thesis making this a mesmerizing novel with the distinct possibility that it introduces new truths in a world of science previously debunked as fakery... backed up by research that brings new ideas into the possibility of reality." "The Esoteric Codex: Nazism and the Occult" By Hans Tridle, ISBN 978-1-312-99589-5 which on page 7 says "Secrets of the Last Nazi by Iain King examines the Third Reich's fascination with astrology and predicting the future". (This quote is verifiable on google books refers to 'Secrets of the Last Nazi' The Men Reading Book's website, which says "It was obvious that King had done some significant research into planetary effects on human behavior and offers copious references at the end of the book." Amazon best selling charts (there are several, including this one (Amazon webpage) showing the book in the number four position, and the tweet which showed it had earlier been in the number one position, thereby indicating cultural impact. Author Renita D'Silva, in this interview, says, "Secrets of the Last Nazi by Iain King - It is fabulous. Turns everything you have believed on its head." Surely those together answer your requirement: they provide an important indication that astrology still features in modern literature, through the book, 'Secrets of the Last Nazi'. Cantelo (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that's a bare minimum, North of Eden. When a book is outselling all the others in its genre because it has astrology as the main theme, that indicates more than a plot element, and more than just 'contemporary fiction'. It indicates suggestions concerning the truth of astrology still attract strong interest, and that astrology still features strongly in modern culture because of 'Secrets of the Last Nazi'.Cantelo (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
North of Eden - or someone - you're going to have to step in here. My words (eg 'suggested') keep being twisted, and implications drawn which aren't relevant: no-one's trying to renegotiate WP:OR, nor is it remotely relevant in this case. Please let's communicate in good faith! Note that I have provided sources, including a book and a Sky News reporter (and plenty of others) which surpass requirements made by AndyTheGrump; and those requirements aren't even what really matters in this case. Cantelo (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
You be being side-tracked, here, North of Eden. The addition would come under the sub-section in the Astrology page on 'Cultural Impact'. By agreeing, as you just did, that the book is about astrology, and that the book has gained widespread notoriety, cultural impact has been demonstrated. In other words, the test is not whether we can find a single source which proves public interest in astrology (that should be clear from the number of people who read horoscopes!). The test - which seems to have been applied to other examples in the Cultural Impact section - is whether astrology has impacted on culture. This book is demonstrably popular culture (as you have just agreed), astrology has clearly impacted on it (as you have also agreed), therefore it goes in. And note that, since these are two criteria, we can very easily provide a single (or more) source to prove each one. Cantelo (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
So, I've won the argument but the person I've been arguing with has decided to withdraw from the process, thereby refusing to accept the outcome. What happens now in WP:DNR ? Cantelo (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, so we can agree. I will do as you say, and not promote a book based on nothing but my own irrelevant opinions. Instead, I will add to the 'Cultural Impact' (of astrology) section by noting that astrology still impacts on modern literature through 'Secrets of the Last Nazi', providing references which confirm the book's notoriety (which have already been endorsed by North of Eden and references that astrology has clearly impacted on the book (also the book endorsed by North of Eden). Agreed?Cantelo (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Talk:Mark Regnerus
Closing this case because the filing party has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I found an error in the use of a word, offered discussion, waited, then made the edit. It was un-done by one user who did not contribute to the talk page, and I reverted my work. It was then undone by another user who "agreed" with the first opinion, who at that point had not used the talk page for this edit. With my insistence, the second user posted some discussion but did not rely on facts, only opinion, and refuses to utilize a neutral point of view with regard to the item content. Since I am new and do not want to get into edit warring, I tried hard to use the talk pages but the group of users "watching" the page are in collusion to keep the word as it stands because it fits their emotional position on the topic. I can't keep reverting to my earlier work because I will be banned for edit warring. If these two users and their co-horts will agree to use neutral POV and allow the word change to stand, it will allow other users to weigh in on the matter as well, as long as they read and contribute to the talk page before undoing the work. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Left messages on their own talk page to invite more dialog, researched the factual definitions of the word, advised users not to change the edit without seeing the talk page, and researched the dispute resolution procedures on Wikipedia. How do you think we can help? Please admonish the users to allow edits that better position a neutral POV. Advise them that using factual information will aid all of us in making Wikipedia a better, more respected place, and that maintaining an emotional position using false information is not what Wikipedia is all about. Summary of dispute by NomoskedasticityNat Gertler captures my sense of why "disclaimer" isn't the right word. I suppose we could use a quote, but I think it's not necessary (& undue, perhaps), and I still don't see the problem with disavowal. Not sure DRN is necessary to sort this out -- and it certainly won't result in other editors being "admonished"... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by RoscelesePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Mark Regnerus discussion
I hope I have illustrated my points with care and diligence and not offended anyone or broken any more rules. Cityside189 (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Cityside189 (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC) References
|
Talk:Equatorial Guinea#Portuguese_in_EQG
Per DRN policy, the dispute must undergo more extensive talk page discussion before we can begin here. A civil talk page discussion, cognizant of the relevant policies, may resolve your issues short of dispute resolution. If need be, we can always come back here at a later date. Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Ukabia on 11:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User:Luizdl has added Portuguese as an official language of Equatorial Guinea citing government sources that, to me, seems vague about whether Portuguese has become official. No other governmental source like UNHCR (2012) and CIA World Factbook (2015) has listed Portuguese as an official language. Users have previously removed Portuguese translations from the article most recently in July 2015 by User:Moalli here with the note "Portuguese is not official, it has only been suggested by the president. Constitution doesn't recognise it yet. Certain users keep inflating figures/presence of Portuguese". User:Luizdl has cited this, which says it will be official, but we still have no solid source that says it has been. There is another source from their UK embassy that I've found here which says it has become official, but I'm still wondering if this is in the constitution as User:Moalli had noted, or if this may be the governments lip service in order to join the CPLP, like some of the criticisms they've received in the press. The question may be whether wikipedia is the only source of information with Portuguese as an official language of EQG because of some government news posts, or whether we wait to see if this is actually verifiable. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have added sources which were out of date or were not focused on the official status of Portuguese, but entry in CPLP. Added another source confirming a presidential decree declaring Portuguese an official language: http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=1622890 Aflis (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC) How do you think we can help? By giving a final word on whether the sources User:Luizdl had used to back the official status of Portuguese in EQG are valid enough considering now other country information sources don't say the same, or we wait to have/find more concrete sources that Portuguese is actually recognised in the fullest capacity as an official language in EQG, and therefore preventing further edits that add Portuguese translations and so on in the article. Summary of dispute by LuizdlPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Equatorial Guinea#Portuguese_in_EQG discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Goshen High_School_%28Indiana%29
This appears to be a user conduct issue; no content dispute has been discussed at the talk page. I would refer the parties to WP:AN/I or the edit-warring noticeboard. Additionally, parties should not place edit-warring warnings on the article itself; I have taken the liberty of removing the tag. Those (if applicable) belong on user talk pages. Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Jrobeck59 on 14:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Someone keeps changing the mascot "Redskins" to read other than what it is currently! The problem is I have NOT been involved in it, but your website says I am??? I have sent an email to your contact page also explaining this!This is what the page reads when I pull it up: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. I have NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN IT, but agree with the person that says "Redskins" is our current Mascot until 2016! Have you tried to resolve this previously? NONE - I DID NOT START THIS!!!!!!!!!!! How do you think we can help? Leave it alone , LOCK it until January 1st, 2016! It should read this way! "Redskins"! STOP BLAMING ME FOR THIS SO CALLED DISPUTE!!!!!!!!!!! Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Goshen High_School_%28Indiana%29 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Valery Kaufman
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The dispute is over Valery Kaufman’s legal name, which is incorrectly listed as Valeriya Kiseleva. The dispute is documented in Talk, in the “Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2015” and “Valery’s real birth name” sections as well as throughout the Edit page. Valery Kaufman’s legal name is Valeriia Kaufman, not Valeriya Kiseleva. This mistake is attributed to a post on a small French blog which incorrectly states “de son vrai nom Valeriya Kiseleva.” Valeriya Kaufman is, instead, a Russian actress. Ms. Kaufman and we have separately repeatedly attempted to correct her legal name, but all edits to her name have been changed back to Valeriya Kiseleva. Wikipedia has now blocked Ms. Kaufman from making any changes. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Through both the Talk and Edit pages, the editors were notified that Valery Kaufman’s legal name was being edited because it was incorrect and was referring to a Russian actress. Cannolis responded on the Talk page and asked for a reliable source that contradicts the French blog. In response, a scan of Ms. Kaufman’s Russian passport was provided. However, RA0808 rejected the scan because it is “not an acceptable source” and reverted the changes. How do you think we can help? Rule that the statement by Ms. Kaufman and her legal counsel that her legal name is Valeriia Kaufman, which statement is supported by Ms. Kaufman’s scanned passport, is more reliable than an unsourced French blog and allow her page to be corrected. Summary of dispute by CannolisPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RA0808Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MaterialscientistPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Valery Kaufman discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Waitrose
This dispute doesn't seem to have been extensively discussed in the article's talk page. DRN requires that the dispute be discussed extensively on a talk page before it can be moderated here. Please consider the recommendations made here, in case editors fail to discuss the issue. If the issue still remains unresolved after thorough talks, feel free to open another case. Regards--☮JAaron95 Talk 01:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Erzan on 20:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Whether the area served by Waitrose should be Great Britain or Britain, or remain South of Scotland, England and Wales. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Provided links to support the case that Waitrose is serving the North of Scotland and urged users to use the website to see for themselves. How do you think we can help? Decide and explain, if not every single part of Wales or England has to have a store (or have goods delivered to it) for both constituencies of Britain to be stated, why treat Scotland separately? Summary of dispute by Redrose64Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Waitrose discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|