Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 80
 | 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 75 | ← | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | → | Archive 85 |
Azerbaijanis in Armenia
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Hablabar has not responded to the request to resolve the dispute despite having edited other pages. Closing in favor of OptimusView's suggestion that the image not be included. All forms of content dispute resolution require some degree of talk page discussion before requesting DR. If the other editor will not discuss, consider the suggestions made here. Hasteur (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2013 (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 am for adding two historical photos of Azerbaijanis, lived in the territory of the modern Armenia. This one and this one. The first one is the postcard of the Russian empire showing the photo of Azerbaijanis from Gyumri. The second one is the photo of noble Azeris from Erivan (nowadays Yerevan) published in two academic books. But user Hablabar is against these images. He thinks that they are forged photofiles (but still didn't show any reason). Have you tried to resolve this previously? We started the discussion on the talk page but reached the dead end. How do you think we can help? Offering an outside opinion on the relevance of policies like WP:OR and WP:BLP Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by OptimusViewI dont know if a have rights for it but I'd like to add few words. The topic of AA relations is sensitive. We have two photoes of uncertain origin. Interfase gives a Livejournal account and an unknown[1] Azeri author as sources. Both pictures are not listed at the Russian specialized catalogues, including the RusCards. Previously there were scandals of photoe's and document's forgery (f.e. related to Khojaly massacre and Ziya Bunyadov). I'd prefer to wait for a more reliable source. OptimusView (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Azerbaijanis in Armenia discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
DRN coordinator's note: Please see the Photo of Azerbaijanis in Gyumri dispute, above, involving this same image. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC) DRN volunteer's note: Interfase has recently become subject to a 1RR restriction [2] under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Arbitration case. Hasteur (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Percy Flowers
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. If the other editor will not discuss, consider following the recommendations made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User thall0515 appears to have a personal interest in the article about Percy Flowers. The user keeps removing the very information which makes the subject of the article notable. That information might be considered derogatory by some people, but the derogatory information is factual and links to the sources of the information are provided. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I left a comment in the edit summary of a prior revision asking them to discuss the revisions on the talk page, and I left a comment on the talk page. They have not responded. How do you think we can help? I'm not sure how the process for dispute resolution works, so maybe you can just let me know if I'm starting the process properly. Summary of dispute by thall0515Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Percy Flowers discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Directed energy weapons, and the Talk page
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Consensus is to not include this content. Racidalmix66 is reminded that wikipedia works on a consensus model. Hasteur (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The user Batvette is removing a lot of the info I have inserted and repeatedly refuses to go into detail as to why. 1 or 2 other users have similarly removed information without having any proper discussion. The nature of the information is indicative of why they want it removed in my opinion, and it is unsurprising that there are one or two names(maybe the same person or not) doing the same thing. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Continuous discussion on an ongoing basis continually inviting those participating to be specific as to why they think information should be removed or is not valid. How do you think we can help? Really I think the other user(s) just need to be told that they have to go into detail and they can't just remove things without being civil and discussing finer points. There approach has been dismissive, discourteous and disrespectful. Summary of dispute by (Radicalmix66-me)Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
My issues are pretty much as outlined above and mentioned on the talk page. The users will endlessly repeat inflammatory accusations and say anything bar actually focusing on the nitty gritty of what they believe to be innaccurate. My references are mostly the military themselves and those that are not are also reliable (That is not to say that what every military says is reliable! But they have given no reason to believe that the information provided by US/Uk military etc is not). I am continuing constructive discussion on the talk page despite negative and highly repetitive attempts to derail valid pertinent contributions. I have guided this to focusing on the detail, although whether they join in or not we shall see. Radicalmix66 (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok so the last edit by me was yesterday. Since I filed this complaint; the attacks on this article have aggressively expanded. The insulting and subjective language is used by almost all of those who have removed information. I have tried to present facts (which indicate what meagre details have been released) about what is essentially an untold history of DEWs. Those who do not want that history to be told are acting extremely aggressively and in numbers. Much of the information they have removed was on the page for months through many edits. The talk page is out of hand so for the purposes of not making this matter isurmountably long, I am awaiting intervention before making further edits. Radicalmix66 (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by BatvetteFirst off it's ridiculous to say I haven't offered reasoning why, I said so on the talk page repeatedly. The material he keeps reinserting is typical conspiracy theory stuff that has no basis in fact and cannot be verified by reliable sources. To wit, it is meant to imply that DEW is actively now being used as "Info Ops" in the US and UK against individuals, and is deployed on satellites in space. The references either don't come close to supporting that or one must take a bit of info from each and synthesize it to a further leap to imagine the claim. I provided a link to the Wiki policy page on original research describing how this tactic is forbidden. It says Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy and it takes about 5 seconds with each claim to see they are not clearly and directly supported. The only reason this content dispute even exists is because nobody has strongly enforced wiki policy yet.I will finally note that I concur with Looie's assessment, noting the paranoid attitude continues even here, with the comment about " nature of the information is indicative of why they want it removed " and implying one editor might be using several names. I broke off discussion when I was accused, by way of 4 years military service 30 years ago, of being a "vested interest". Batvette (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Looie496This is one of several WP articles that are occasionally subjected to tinfoil-hat style paranoid editing, and that's what's going on here. Let me note that I opened a section about this at WP:FTN before being notified of this post. Looie496 (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Comment by EEngI haven't been involved at all but stumbled on this by accident. I left a helpful message on Radicalmix66's talk, which he disposed of this way [3], then accused me [4] of being "one of the pseudonyms of the person/persons now suddenly replicating such activity" i.e. an SPA of the Master Controlling Evil One who is resisting his attempts to Warn Us Of What Is Really Going On. (He also doesn't seem to know what a war college is.) I will not be participating further in this DRN thread, but I will continue to revert addition of nonsense to the page, as time permits. EEng (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Directed energy weapons, and the Talk page discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Ok, I've read the related discussions. I'm seeing one editor who is taking a fringe/conspiracy viewpoint regarding the subject and multiple editors (including ones who are very familiar with the appropriate policies/guidelines/best practices) opposing the inclusion. As Wikipedia works on the Consensus model (where consensus does not have to be uninimity) until the opposition can show sources that sway the consensus, the existing consensus remains in effect. Therefore I would like to suggest that there exists a consensus among editors that there the inclusion of the warred over content is not justified. As this is a consensus revolving around content and in relation to the inclusion of specific content, conduct aspersions and assertions have no justification. That being the case pending a significant content argument for why the content should be included, this thread will be closed in 72 hours with the above proposed solution. Hasteur (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Harvey Milk and related articles
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | There is a clear consensus in favor of the current wording, and no policy-based reasons to change it. Guy Macon (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Related content, some with elements of this discussion as well. Presumably these would need editing as well, and in some cases retitling.
Users involved Dispute overview A number of users are pushing the viewpoint that Harvey Milk was assassinated. He was certainly murdered, but I do not think the circumstances of his death warrant use of the assassination, which is pushing an agenda. Many other authors online also agree with this viewpoint. I would also argue that even if opinion is divided, the word killed is still the safer word to use as this term would still include assassination. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on the article talk pages and on user talk pages. Breaching of the 3RR occurred, so I have chosen to cease these options and instead open up discussion to the wider community. How do you think we can help? Hopefully bring unbiased views to the table. Summary of dispute by VarnentMost of my thoughts in regards to Rebroad's claims have already been made on Talk:Harvey Milk. However, here is a recap from my perspective:
I will repeat my questions as well:
Note: I have a stated interest in matters related to Harvey Milk. I believe my edits have been within policies, and not based on opinion, and have asked that any changes be made after consensus. If consensus is reached that a change should be made, I would obviously not revert the change. However, I do not believe a change of that scale should be made without discussion. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TwpRebroad's basic point seems to be that Harvey Milk's murder shouldn't be called an assassination because Dan White killed Harvey Milk out of a personal grudge, rather than for political reasons. I just don't think the distinction between "assassination" and "murder" is really all that hard and fast. One of the most notorious assassination attempts ever in the U.S. -- the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan -- was also not politically motivated, but instead was driven by the gunman's psychotic belief that killing Reagan would impress Jodie Foster. Yet we still refer to it as an "assassination attempt". Our own article on assassination defines it as "the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons ... it is an act that may be done for financial gain, to avenge a grievance ..." So I think that referring to Harvey Milk's murder as an "assassination" is both consistent with our own guidelines and is the best reflection of the conventional wisdom on the matter. —Tim Pierce (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by DmolThe word assassination is used in the two main articles from the very beginning. (Harvey Milk 2006, and Moscone–Milk Assassinations 2008) A consensus has long been established on this issue, with only 1 or 2 editors arguing against that consensus. It is very easy to find references that describe the killing as assassination, which I also think is the correct term. In a quick search, I have found [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], all of which refer to an assassination. That some websites, books, or even Wikipedia articles, refer to "killings" or "murders", does not take from the fact that "assasination" is in widespread use. As an aside, it is easy to find mention of President Kennedy being "murdered" also.
User Mwelch raised two very good points on the M-M A talk page, namely –
Harvey Milk and related articles discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Now that everyone has made their initial statements, I am opening this up for discussion. The way I like to work on resolving disputes (and of course how we want to work on resolving this dispute is open for discussion) is to focus on one issue at a time by asking questions. If it seems that I am only challenging one side, that's because I want to focus on one question. Wait a while and the other side will be in the hot seat. Also, feel free to continue discussing anything you want on the article talk page. I am going to start with a couple of questions for Rebroad just to clarify the request being made here. First, you don't want the word assassinate. Must it be replaced with killed or is murdered or some other word acceptable? Second, there are two possible reasons for not wanting to not use assassinate, and I want to clarify which argument you are making. You could argue that we can't use it. This would require you to provide citations to reliable sources supporting that. If the citations are overwhelming (quality counts as well as numbers) and most of the sources say that it is a killing or that it isn't an assassination -- or if they say the opposite -- I would expect you to all to follow the sources. You could argue that the sources do not force us to use one term or the other, but rather that this is up to editorial judgement and that your choice of words is clearer, more accurate, etc. If you want to make this argument, you need to convince other editors and get a consensus for your version. Usually it is pretty clear what the consensus is, but if there is a serious question we can post an RfC. So please let us know which argument you are making, because each has a completely different counterargument and would lead me to ask different kinds of question. I would ask the rest of you to hold off a bit until we clarify the above points. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Scott Joplin
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive talk page discussion as required by the guidelines of this noticeboard before seeking help here. Talk page discussion is required by all forms of content dispute resolution at Wikipedia before seeking dispute resolution. Ask for discussion at the article talk page, and if the other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations given here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I need help deciding which kind of grammar to use, American or British. I was under the impression that the grammar used was specific to the origin of the subject. In this case the subject is Scott Joplin, an American, therefore I deviated to American grammar and its practices with regard to quotation marks. I'd love someone who is familiar with both types of grammar to give their input as well as best practice involving American/British disputes. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Described the changes I made and why. How do you think we can help? I need someone to be a mediator. I've looked up the correct use of grammar on Wikipedia and I could only gather what I mentioned above, that the grammar used is specific to the origin of the subject. Summary of dispute by Hoops gzaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Scott Joplin discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
NaturalNews
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Please read the instructions at the top of the page before filing. The instructions clearly say that We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Michael0156 reported by User:Jinkinson (Result: Blocked)), Avoid discussing editor behavior or conduct, just content please (the complaint is all about user conduct) and The dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before requesting help at DRN. (there has been very little talk page discussion.) Guy Macon (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User Jinkinson is personally attacking me, reverting my edits and stalking me. There is no chance of resolving this through the Talk Page with Jinkinson or Brangifer. Brangifer has reverted one of my edits and in Talk he is ignoring jinkinson's persnol attacks and insults.
I have sent an email to wikipedia and wikimedia with details. I have responded to the talk on the Talk Page, but not in any belief that there could be rational discussion, only to defend myself from Jinkinson's personal attacks and insults.
It would take an objective viewing of the versions of the Natural News website as well as both versions of the Wiki page that is in dispute. I don;t know if you have the personnell or time necessary to do that
Summary of dispute by JinkinsonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I assume by "personal attack" Michael0156 means I referred to him as an "anti-vaccine troll", which I should not have done and for which I apologize. As for charges of stalking, I would argue that they have no basis in reality--all I did was post on his talk page and open a thread on WP:ANEW regarding this page, and I know about his YouTube channel only because I was briefly involved in a dispute with him on YouTube in 2012. However, I remain convinced that Michael0156's version of the article NaturalNews does not assign due weight to the evidence, and I feel that while it is true that criticism sections are bad writing, that criticism should be included in the article, as not doing so would violate NPOV. If Michael0156 wants to add information where people are saying positive things about NaturalNews in reliable sources, that would not be so bad, but removing text is another thing entirely. Summary of dispute by brangiferPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
NaturalNewsPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Frédéric Chopin
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Stale. Well past DRN 2-week life span, no edits within several days. Archive bot (not currently working) should have automatically closed it days ago, so doing it manually. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There is a dispute about whether Chopin was Polish or Polish-French. The first compromise was reverted and sources not supporting the view that he was Polish removed. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on the talk page, sources found, compromise in the article saying it is disputed (which was reverted and sources removed). How do you think we can help? Create a compromise, or find the generally accepted nationality Summary of dispute by Toccata quartaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 178.222.192.243Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Nihil noviPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Volunteer MarekPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Frédéric Chopin discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Please note: I have added @Volunteer Marek: to this DRN as it is clear he should have been listed by the filing party as involved. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 08:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The case for PolishIn google books: Chopin "French-Polish composer" - 23 results. Note this includes hits with or without the hyphen. Chopin "Polish-French composer" - 53 results. Note this includes hits with or without the hyphen. Chopin "Polish composer" - ... wait for it... wait for it... wait for it... 8420 hits. And for this one I subtracted off the hits which include the words "wikipedia" or "llc" (but not for the above to searches). So in sources Chopin is more frequently described as a "Polish composer" relative to other phrasings by a factor of 110. Or in percent terms, about 10900% more. There's just no comparison. There is no reason for controversy. There's several pages of archives of the talk page where this has been discussed. To death. Consensus has been reached. It is a complete and utter waste of time to open this up again on a whim of a single random Wikipedia editor. Who apparently can't be bothered to read the archives, even after he's been directed towards them. Or maybe has read them but suffers from a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek 07:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The case for Polish-FrenchPer WP:OPENPARA he should be described as Polish-French, because he spent much of his life in France and was a French citizen. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 17:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Continued discussionThe ODNB states he was a composer and pianist, was born at Żelazowa Wola, near Warsaw... the second of Frenchman Nicolas (Mikołaj) Chopin...basically it presents the facts and lets the reader decide. Tommy Pinball (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Pashtun People
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive talk page discussion as required by the guidelines of this noticeboard. This case was the filing editor's very first edit. Please go back and discuss this on the article talk page. —Guy Macon (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2013 (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 For a little over a month, there is being a concerted effort made to increase the number of Pashtuns in India from 11,000 to 11 million. For the many years that these articles have been in existence, there has been no issue with the population number. For some reason, the number of Pashtuns in India has gone up by a factor of 1000. I belive there are ulterior motives at play, and that some users are trying to form some form of deep online association between Pashtuns and India. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Edit battles have taken place. Much discussion conducted between the parties involved in the talk page, Administrators have come in as well. How do you think we can help? Bring in neutral parties to look at the competing claims. I will check in periodically and try and respond in as efficient manner as possible. Summary of dispute by Fareed30
Summary of dispute by Daonguyen95Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 184.175.27.29Im sorry, but just because you say it "seems reasonable" to conclude there are 11 million Pashtun in India, is not sufficient. You cannot just introduce a number like this. Then you claim, it is recorded in the Indian census. I checked and it is not true. There are a small number of Pashtuns in India. You are here because you and Daonguyen95 keep reverting back to that page. Fine, I will add Krisxlowry to this discussion as well. P.S. Yes, this is an IP from Ontario Canada. 184.175.27.29 (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Pashtun People discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Trick or Treatment
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as withdrawn. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I believe I am being harrassed unnecessarily by Alexbrn who has deleted my contribution to the "Trick or Treatment" page. It is a statement of fact about the book's website. We have discussed it on the talk page, but he refuses to compromise in any way. I believe my statement of fact is important because the article says that the book evaluates the scientific evidence for ... I think that to evaluate scientific evidence, you need to know where that evidence is (i.e. references). There are not many in the book's website as I was pointing out in my contribution. I am willing to change the wording of my contribution to make it as neutral as he wants, but he refuses to even include any comments about the fact I was pointing out. The contributions of Bobrayner and Blackguard SF are also a problem. Bobrayner was the first to undo my contribution with a laconic "not an improvement". So far, he hasn't given an explanation of why it is not an improvement to explain, clarify and point out that a book which says it is evidence-based doesn't provide much evidence, even when I asked him why in the "Trick or Treatment" talk page and in his own talk page. Blackguard SF has undone my contribution with an "original research unsupported by third party source" 1) As I have explained, anyone can look at the book's website and see that my contribution was accurate and truthful and 2) He is not telling the truth. Itis not original research. The lack of references for most of the chapters in "Trick or Treatment" was pointed out by the book "Halloween Science" by William Alderson in 2009. It is also freely acknowledged by the authors on the website, which was mentioned in the article before I tried to contribute. Johntosco (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Lengthy discussion on the talk page How do you think we can help? By evaluating my contribution and helping me change the wording, if necessary, so that it is acceptable to Alexbrn and Bobrayner. Summary of dispute by AlexbrnPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Trick or Treatment discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here (and the current coordinator). I'm going to recommend to Johntosco, the requesting editor, that you ask for help with this at the Teahouse. John, I'm telling you this from an entirely subject-neutral point of view: You're struggling with basic Wikipedia policies and principles; the other editors are very close to being 100% right and you are very close to being 100% wrong. You're interpreting terms such as "reliable source" and "original research" using what you think they mean from just basic English, but they are in fact very specifically-defined Wikipedia terms with very specific meanings. Until you learn those meanings — and they're very basic, along with a few other policies, to how Wikipedia works — you're just going to become more and more frustrated. It's not just a question of rewording: many things which people feel are Unquestionably True and Vitally Important cannot be included in Wikipedia at all due to Wikipedia's basic restrictions on reliable sourcing and original research. The folks at the Teahouse are experts at helping newcomers deal with the intricacies. Give them a try. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC) TransporterMan. Thank you very much. I thought it would be impolite not to reply, and this is the only reason I am doing so. I do not intend to continue with this farce. They have won. I have granted them the victory. They have managed to keep a simple and verifiable truth - for personal reasons, I think - out of wikipedia. I couldn't care less right now. Liepedia, as it should be known, doesn't interest me any more. I am writing about the subject. It is much more interesting and rewarding than presenting simple truths which are rejected because "it is not an improvement". This is what Bobrayner said, isn't it? He never mentioned why it is not an improvement - even when I asked him - and no doubt you will enlighten me on the meaning of improvement in wikipedia. I already have one publisher interested in my writing. I have decided today to include a chapter about how liepedia - oops sorry - wikipedia is about power and not truth. The talk page can reveal what I mean to the whole world. If I took your advice about basic meanings, I could erase the words "and briefly covers 36 other treatments" and " the authors conclude that the dangers of these treatments outweigh any potential benefits." in the article since this could be considered original research - according to wikipedia principles - and has not been confirmed by an independent third party source. Which third party source says that the book says that? Why is not included in the references? I know when I'm beaten. I know when people have friends in liepedia - oops sorry again - wikipedia who have power, they must love it. Bye, bye. Johntosco (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Sorry. TransporterMan. I forgot to point out something which wouldbegoodfor the public at large to know. Wikipedia's definition of original research means that if a journalist prints a lie such as "The book presents evidence for ..." when the book doesn't, I can write it in wikipedia. I have - according to wikipedia - a "reliable source". But I am not allowed to say that the book doesn't provide references - the truth - because no journalist or writer has printed the truth. Bravo wikipedia! Let everyone know. In fact, I have come up with a much better name than liepedia, liemedia. Should I set up a blog about it? Something like wikipedia is about the power of the media. Johntosco (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Shiva article
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Discussion going on the Shiva articles talk page.user Abecedare unnecessary wasting my time even i given reliable source. but he removed the content and unnecessary he wasting time in talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? i given enough explanation but he is going his track only How do you think we can help? see the reference what i add.then do the need full.stop him and his supporter from my editing. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Shiva article discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Major film studio
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Relevant issues were discussed and mediated in good faith. After waiting several days and having received no further response from the second party (IP) as to the final points of resolution, I am concluding this case. If there are additional issues, please open a new case. Thank you to all those that participated.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 05:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Some how the IP editor thinks that I am claim that Liongate Entertainment Incoporated isn't not the subsidiary of Lionsgate Entertainment Corporation and the parent of Liongate Films. In edit summaries and at the talk page, I indicate that there isn't a dispute over that matter and that his reversions are also removing other corrections and a simplied table structure. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I made a request for page protection which was denide with a recommendation for sanctions. Requested -help me- to figure out where I should file for sanctions with the responding admin locking the page and directing me here. How do you think we can help? Don't know. I was direct here. Perhaps if some one else tells the IP editor there isn't a dispute over content, they might listen. Otherwise, I am at a loss. Summary of dispute by 99.46.224.199Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Major film studio discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hi folks, page protection has been granted for one week. As User:Darkwind has instructed please refrain from editing the article while this dispute resolution process is underway. We will talk together, come to a consensus and then make changes. I also remind both editors to please remain civil and to discuss content only, not editor behavior. Now.....which editor finds the current state of the article objectionable and why? Please be succinct and provide sources. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Spshu wants things done his way instead of trying to work things out with other users. I cleaned up his mess at what he did on Major film studio because it looks so confusing. Conglomerate and parent company should “not” be listed under the same column. There is a huge difference between both distinctive names and Spshu failed to look them up and compare and contrast both names for ownership of companies or studios. As I told him, Lions Gate Entertainment Corporation is the corporate parent and Lions Gate Entertainment, Inc. is formerly known as “Artisan Entertainment, Inc.”. I don’t know why he added those names under each other on the table under the same column where it doesn’t need to be. He said that his version is proper, where it’s not proper, where it’ll lead to a whole mess of confusion. I added the following on the talk page: He's quick to ask for a page protection for edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.224.199 (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Sources:
-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Part II
Hi Spshu, thanks for your response. Is this the chart we are discussing? If so, is the discussion concerning the content in the lines (left to right) that begin with Walt Disney? and Sony/Sony Pictures Entertainment?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
So it appears that the Destination Films thing is the only remaining issue. Thanks for pointing out that Destination Films is mentioned in the trailer I didn't see that. IP99.46.224 I think that your source gives an indication that Destination Films exists or existed, but its not definitive in any way. Likewise the Sony website which does not list Destination Films as a subsidiary also gives and indication its not around anymore but it is also not definitive. Since this information is contentious and there are no conclusive sources, the usual course of action would be to leave out any info about Destination Films until conclusive, reliable sources can be found. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Part III99.46.224.199 has issues with the formating of the table for both the list of Majors and the Mini-Majors. He doesn't like the conglomerate and parent unit in the same box seperated by an line. He claims it is confusing. While I point out that it is easiler to see the whole table since less rap-around accur in the various cells forcing the table off screen even further. Some columns were remove on the Mini-Major table if there were few that have units of that catagories comparison with the Majors' table as to increase reability, so How how sure it is confusing as the table lines mimic the header line with the line showing up there. Spshu (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Eurofighter Typhoon
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Since this case has already been at DRN for more than the ordinary 2-week life of a DRN case (that's the reason it was auto-archived by the bot), further dispute resolution should either be through a RFC or be taken to the Mediation Committee, rather than relisting it here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The original press release stated the maximum speed of the Eurofighter as Mach 2.0+ in 2003. Several magazines and other sources have reprinted this figure in the interim. These do not class as secondary sources in my view because: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USEPRIMARY#.22Secondary.22_is_not_another_way_to_spell_.22good.22 From from the above: "Characteristics of a secondary source: "A secondary source usually provides analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation. It is this act of going beyond simple description, and telling us the meaning behind the simple facts, that makes them valuable to Wikipedia." The mags fulfill none of the criteria mentioned above wrt the Typhoon Mach figure and have remained stagnant (not updated) since 2003. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USEPRIMARY#Not_a_matter_of_counting_the_number_of_links_in_the_chain: "Consider the simple example above: the original proclamation is a primary source. Is the book necessarily a secondary source? The answer is: not always. If the book merely quotes the proclamation (such as re-printing a section in a sidebar or the full text in an appendix, or showing an image of the signature or the official seal on the proclamation) with no analysis or commentary, then the book is just a newly printed copy of the primary source, rather than being a secondary source. The text and images of the proclamation always remain primary sources." More recently the Austria Airforce has quoted the Typhoon at 2,495kph at 10,975m. This calculates as Mach 2.35 at ISA conditions (see old DRN). This capability has been confirmed by the manufacturer Eurofighter GmbH as possible with a given fuel load etc. (see old DRN). In light of the fact that these are two good primary sources and in the absence of any true secondary sources (with independent analysis or verification) I move to edit the Mach figure '2.35' or add a note added explaining that 2,495kph@10,975m calculates as Mach 2.35. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Previous DR which was archived before resolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_78#Eurofighter_Typhoon How do you think we can help? By looking at this from the perspective of new information from a valid source verified by the manufacturer rather than simply counting reprints of legacy data. Summary of dispute by McSlyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Julian HerzogPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Eurofighter Typhoon discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Ghouta chemical attack
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Moot (see closing notice below). — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Hi I hope this is the right place. We are discussing whether Face Book is an RS. I say no. Has this been covered before, surely it has but I cant find it. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talking. How do you think we can help? Clear cut policy ? Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There is a reference SOHR [19] on a Face Book page. I thought its not good enough for WP. People need an account to see it for starters. It seemed to me to be not notable. Ghouta chemical attack discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Has FB been generally covered in RS policy? Can someone help clear this up?
24 hour closing notice: If I understand what Blade is saying, it would appear that this listing is moot since the Facebook source is no longer being put forth. EkoGraf was not, however, formally notified of this dispute until I did so just a few seconds ago. Unless someone objects, this listing will be closed as moot after 14:00 UTC on 1 November 2013. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC) (as current DRN coordinator)
|
Republic of Kosovo
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | See closing comments. Guy Macon (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview A dispute has arisen over the lead sentence and it has gone on for far too long and I think it is time for admin intervention to help mediate. My view is that it is POV to say that Kosovo is a "Sovereign State" as that is disputed and Serbia contests this. However the term "state" means "a community living under a government" therefore it isn't POV to use the term "state" as many things can be a "state" such as a country, a city, a province, a territory ect. I propose that we use the "Politic State" as it is status neutral as it shows to our reader/ audience that there is a "community living under a Government" (regardless of whether that Government be autonomous or independent). Also with the use of the word "politic" it doesn't take into account or leave out the disputed "sovereignty" or hegemony". I feel that uses here seem to think that users in this dispute seem to think that the word "state" only means "sovereign state" and that is not the case. A "sovereign state" is a country under international law, this is why Serbia disputes in international law that Kosovo is a "state". When it says "it is debated whether Kosovo is a State under international law" it is fairly obvious that it is in the context of a 'sovereign state' as a "A sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system" Other states don't claim to exist under international law. Only sovereign states claim to exist under international law. I think it would be POV to describe Kosovo as a sovereign state in international law but it is not POV to portray Kosovo as a community living under a government aka "state". And to distinguish "state" from "sovereign state" I have proposed the status neutral term "politic state".
Have you tried to resolve this previously? It has been discussed thoroughly for ages and many propositions have been made. No success. How do you think we can help? Just general mediation and guidance. Summary of dispute by NeljackI thank IJA for bringing this here, because it feels like we've been going round in circles and not making any progress. My position is that we cannot say that the Republic of Kosovo is a state because that is a "seriously contested assertion" and therefore not NPOV (see the sources that Danlaycock has helpfully provided). The current wording that it is a "partially recognised state" suggests that it is a state, albeit one that isn't recognised by some other states. Therefore I believe it violates NPOV. It feels like we're often being talking past each other. One of the problems, I think, is the ambiguity of some of the words involved. For instance, IJA has argued that "state" means something quite different to "sovereign state", whereas I would say in this context it would usually be taken as meaning "sovereign state". Compromise proposals I've made are:
I've made a real effort to compromise and I believe others have made a good-faith effort too, but despite seeming close sometimes we've never managed to come to agreement. Thanks, Neljack (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by DanlaycockThe first sentence currently describes the Republic of Kosovo (RoK) as a "partially recognised state". The problem is that RS make clear that whether or not the RoK is a "state" is in dispute:
The government of Serbia, which still claims the territory for its own, has argued that "...the so-called Republic of Kosovo does not fulfill the constituent requirements of a State". Many other states support Serbia on this position. Since there is a dispute among sources whether the RoK is a state, WP:NPOV demands that we should not claim that it is without some sort of qualification to give WP:DUE weight to the alternative POV. This argues that "'contested state' is an even better term inasmuch as it neatly captures the full political and legal problems faced by these territories." Britannica uses "self-declared independent country" Other suggestions I have made are the more general, status neutral polity. TDL (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by BobraynerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Note: Starting without comment from this editor. Feel free to add your openinng statement at your convenience. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by DIREKTOR
Summary of dispute by CognoscerapoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
IMHO it is perfectly alright to call Kosovo a "sovereign state" or a country, we don't want weasel terms that serve to deny the facts on the ground. For more than a year Kosovo has ruled itself without supervision. Sovereignty is not in question. From 2008-2012 the country was 'supervised' but that supervision was lifted and now Kosovo is the same type of fully fledged legal state as Albania, Belgium and Sweden. Serbia likes to make it's own criteria as to what constitutes a "state" but if their personal definition carried any weight, I hardly think all western democracies would have recognized Kosovo on virtually Day 1 (US, UK, Germany etc). Those governments have advisors and know what makes a 'state'. As for not all countries recognizing Kosovo, please, give me a break! Not all countries recognize Israel but does that mean it's not s sovereign state? Not all countries recognize People's Republic of China because some choose Taiwan, so is China not a state? Please, it is 2013, get over it. Cognoscerapo (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Silvio1973I bumped in this discussion almost by chance but honestly I could not resist to get into it. I must be very ignorant because in my eyes there is almost no issue. Perhaps the issue is so simple to be not to everyone's taste. Perhaps, when it comes to the Balkans there is always too much politics to make things simple. The Republic of Kosovo (ROK) is at least a state with partial recognition. Very simplistically because over 100 states in the world recognised it (including three of the five countries of the UNSC). Face to this evidence, how can be proposed that the ROK is anything les than a state with partial (or limited) recognition? It is not a self-recognised state, such as the Republic of Northern Cyprus (the UN considers it as territory of the Republic of Cyprus under unlawful Turkish military occupation). Indeed, technically the ROK is even more recognised than the Republic of Taiwan, which is formally recognised only by a handful of (small) countries. Serbia has a different position, but how much this is more relevant than the recognition of Kosovo as a sovereign state by over 100 countries this is very arguable. Serbia's arguments are relevant enough to be reported in the lead, but not relevant enough to reduce the right of the RoK to be considered a state. Someone might claim there is an issue of OR in this approach. Well not less than in the other proposed formulations.--Silvio1973 (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by ZavtekPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Note: Starting without comment from this editor. Feel free to add your openinng statement at your convenience. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC) I agree with proposal per Guy Macon's description, "state" has enough meanings to explain the actual situation. 106 current recognitions warrants something more important than North Cyprus and Transdniester but caution should still be exercised both in lede and elsewhere. Zavtek (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Republic of Kosovo discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Update: Three editors have not commented. I am going to give them until tomorrow morning (PST) then open this up for discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC) One addition thing: if anyone is not satisfied with the way I am attempting to help resolve this, fell free to ask for another dispute resolution volunteer. Unless someone is obviously trying to game the system, I am usually happy to step down and let someone else try -Guy Macon (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC) OK, I am opening this up for discussion. Before we go any farther, I would like to draw to your attention the instructions at the top of this page: "Avoid discussing editor behavior or conduct, just content please." I have On to the important stuff. I would like you to post the one or perhaps two references that you think are the most compelling, and the exact wording that you want to be in the article that is supported by the reference. Whoever happens to read this and responds first will be the first one we analyze. I am not at this time looking for a bunch of comments/responses -- there is plenty of that on the article talk page and it hasn't resulted in the dispute being resolved. Instead I want to focus on the one citation. Don't worry, everyone will get their turn. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC) ArgumentsThank you Guy Macon, The wording I propose is: The Republic of Kosovo is a state, partially recognised within the international community, in the Balkans... It can be claimed that what I am writing is OR, but the RoK objectively fulfills the 4 criteria of the 1933 Montevideo Convention to be qualified as a state: 1) Permanent population, 2) Defined territory, 3) Government, 4) Capacity to enter into relations with the other states. And concerning the recognition, the article 3 of the aforementioned convention says that "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states". And the RoK is recognised by 106 UN members... Now, it is unlikely that on a recent and controversial issue such as the Independence of the RoK that any major academical institution will be so assertive to write that the Kosovo is a state (or conversely that it is not). On the Web there are plenty of opinions in support of one or the other view. But at the end of the day what can be stronger argument than the actual formal recognition of the RoK from other UN members? And please note that every year more and more UN members recognise the RoK as an independent state.--Silvio1973 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Just as I found Silvio1973's calling it a state to have problems, I see some problems with calling it a Government and Civil Authority which administrates most of a territory. First of all, it's wordy; why not just call it a territory? It's also controversial -- it says it isn't a state -- and leaves the reader wondering "a territory of what?" If you say Serbia, that's really controversial. How about looking at how the editors of other disputed patches of dirt handled this? Maybe one of those would be an acceptable compromise:
ProposalIncorporating some of what has been discussed above, how about:
Alternatively, we could replace "majority" with the exact number. Is this acceptable to others? TDL (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Atheism
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive discussion of particular changes as required by this forum. Please propose specific changes at the article talk page or boldly make them to the article, then discuss them at the article talk page if they are reverted. If, either way, discussion then stalls, then consider dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Atheism claims to have verifiable information to support the base-definition of "no god/s". However, there is no information covering A.) time/continuum prior to the Big Bang; nor what triggered it. As the theory goes, the Universe expanded from a 1-dimensional, infinitely small and infinitely dense point - uniform. The question as to what initiated this expansion is not clearly addressed; as it should be - even if the resolution is more doubt (the question as to what was before the current cosmological model was never addressed or considered prior to Edwin Hubble's theories and observations). Is the article (Atheism) suggesting that the idea that there are no gods (absence of gods or dismissal of belief - not unlike the absence in the belief that Merlin makes Sol rise) is without logical holes? As far as the evidence (or lack of evidence) suggests, the question of, "can a universe can be initiated without outside effort?" has not yet been varifiably answered nor addressed - how can anyone bring "reliable citation" for something such as a belief? All I want added is a clarification that there is a large, logical gap in any cosmological model which doesn't include pre-"creation" or the initiation of "creation". The article poses valid arguments against theism - but does not provide many or any counterarguments, or arguments yet unresolved. As the article (Atheism) stands, it is biased towards the assertion of "atheism" rather than an objective argument against 'gods' as 'creators'. If what is being claimed is something similar to apatheism, then perhaps the articles should be merged. But "a-theism" is a claim - and claims that are unresolved must consider any opposing viewpoints or concepts. As testimate to the bias of the Atheism article, it should be pointed out that even the Christianity article has a section for "Criticisms'; while Atheism does not. Xan81 (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Atheism Talk page, user talk pages How do you think we can help? As another theory or as an indication of gaps in the theory (Big Bang) The unresolved aspects of cosmology. This deficiency should be added to the controversy section of the Atheism article - or a section added to address gaps in the logic. Essentially, there are many classical arguments for atheism while not or hardly addressing remaining variables and temporal gaps - but following Hubble's observations and the philosophies involved, little mention by atheists. Summary of dispute by John ReavesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by EuroCarGTPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Mann jessPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Rhododendrites
Atheism discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Duck typing
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Conduct dispute and also administrative. DRN does not handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes and what's being alleged here is, essentially, page ownership, a conduct matter. Consider ANI or RFC/U for conduct matters. Also, if there are other editors who need to be listed in order to achieve a resolution, it is incumbent upon the listing editor to list them so that the bot can notify them, rather than to put the burden on a volunteer to figure out who they are, list them, and manually create response sections for them and notify them. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The views of a single editor are continuously opposing the views of other editors. While this is not any issue in itself, it let to repeated deleting by this user of works by others - based on his specific view on the subject. While there does not seem to be any need to suppress any of the views provided (including the view by the editor in question), the article appears biased at the moment due to the persistent deletions of contributions. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Multiple attempts have been made (via editorial comments and on talk pages) to convince the editor in question about the existence of other valid views on the subject. How do you think we can help? I could imagine that stating quality and neutrality standards by an uninvolved party might refocus the issue at hand back towards overall quality of Wikipedia and away from fighting over which views are "more correct". Summary of dispute by Paddy3118Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by many others scattered over the talk page of the articlePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Duck typing discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Gary Kubiak
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Help request, not a dispute. For help requests use HELP. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The "Personal" section for Gary Kubiak is totally inappropriate! Have you tried to resolve this previously? None How do you think we can help? Delete the inappropriate content. Summary of dispute by nullPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Gary Kubiak discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Halloween around the world
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive talk page discussion as required by DRN. Please discuss the issues thoroughly at the article talk page before seeking dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview AussieLegend keeps on deleting content that has sources. He thinks that they don't have the addressed information. They actually explain how Halloween is celebrated in this region. I have also been to this region in October before, so I know how it works. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried talking about it on his talk page. How do you think we can help? You can protect the page for about a week or so. Summary of dispute by AussieLegendPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Halloween around the world discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard#Improper_use_of_rollback
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | DRN is for content disputes only; things which happen at AN or ANI are conduct-related and that, RFC/U or ARBCOM are the proper places to resolve them. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I reported an editor for an improper rollback which was dealt with. But a series of unsubstantiated posts which impinged my reputation were added. To these I added the subheading, hoping that those who had made the unsupported disparaging comments would at least apologise. There have been no steps taken to either support the comments or withdraw them. Can you advise me how this problem can be resolved? At the same time Jim Sweeney reported me for an edit war here [23] which has been linked back to the rollback discussion. I pointed out the weakness of the links used to support this report, but once the link back to the rollback discussion happened this issue also has remained unresolved. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Apart from the comments on the discussions I have not done anything else. How do you think we can help? I don't know, but I think its very worrying that these events have occurred on Administrators' noticeboards, and I would be grateful for any advice you can give. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard#Improper_use_of_rollback discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Thomas Szasz
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Page domination a/k/a/ page ownership is a conduct matter, not a content matter. DRN does not handle conduct matters, only content matters. Feel free to refile with specific content matters which are in dispute (but only if they have been extensively discussed at the article talk page) but do not discuss the conduct of other editors. Since you've not been here long, let me suggest that you might find some help at the Teahouse. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Thomas Szasz's page is being dominated by an individual, Anotherpseudonym, assisted by FreeKnowledgeCreator, who subscribe to the 'mental illness denier' mentality (whatever that means) who show little understanding of the work of Thomas Szasz and are merely providing a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of Szasz's work - motivated by his association with the Scientolgy group CCHR. All attempts at reasoning, as demonstrated by the talk page, have been dismissed and censored. Have you tried to resolve this previously? There have been many discussions on the talk page by numerous people to attempt to resolve this dispute. How do you think we can help? I would like to see a third party intervene and adjudicate. If possible one who has knowledge of the philosophy of psychiatry, an understanding of the conflicts between psychologists and biological psychiatry and/or of science. Summary of dispute by AnotherpseudonymPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by FreeKnowledgeCreatorPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Thomas Szasz discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Tim Ball
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | As noted by Keithbob, the proper venue for deletion "appeals" is Deletion Review, not DRN. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I've looked for information on two topics which had articles on Wikipedia, but the articles have been deleted by others for "lack of notability". A good example is "Tim Ball" (Timothy F.Ball, PhD academic). The Tim Ball article was debated as to notability, and a majority decided he wasn't notable enough for Wikipedia in spite of over 2,200,000 Google hits & hundreds of WP hits in the case of Tim Ball. It appears that some editors simply dislike Tim Ball and worked together to delete the article. How can we users object to deletion of a Wikipedia article that is a useful resource? Deletion of an article really inconveniences readers in a big way. How can an article be restored so we can use it again, even if other editors simply dislike the subject enough to declare that it's "not notable"? Have you tried to resolve this previously? Asked for advice here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#Timothy_F._Ball How do you think we can help? A significant article on a notable subject can be deleted by a group of editors for any reason, depriving WP users of a useful resource. In this case, William M. Connolley, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Stephan Schulz, and Guettarda appear to be able to work together to force a delete. Once the article has been deleted, no more discussion is possible. Can you help us users to find a way to block organized deletes of useful content? Summary of dispute by William M. ConnolleyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Short Brigade Harvester BorisPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Stephan SchulzPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have a somewhat hard time assuming good faith on this request. The AfD for the page is here. It was closed by User:David Gerard. None of the 4 people allegedly responsible for the deletion has !voted or even commented on the proposal. And I really don't appreciate being called "an active censorship cabal like William M. Connolley/Short Brigade Harvester Boris/Stephan Schulz/Guettarda". That said, Tim Ball is primarily known as a so-called sceptical commentator on the topic of climate change. He writes plenty of opinion pieces (generating GHits), but very little science. Last time I checked, no-one had written about him, reducing sources to passing references without substance, and self-published blurbs. I don't see how it's possible to write a balanced, well-sourced article about Ball. Again referencing this edit by the OP, being somewhat fluent in German, I checked, and I found no article on Ball on the German Wikipedia, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC) P.S.: I was referring to the 2013 deletion discussion for Tim Ball. The OP seems to mix up Timothy Ball and Tim Ball, two different articles about the same living person that were deleted in different and largely independent AfDs, the first in 2011 (in which the alleged cabal did indeed comment) and the more current one in 2013. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GuettardaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Tim Ball discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Ball Comment: The above is the 2011 discussion for Timothy Ball. The latest instance of the article was at Tim Ball and was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Ball, a largely independent discussion in 2013. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC) There are two AfD's:
They appear to be the same person, yes? In either case, the correct venue for an "appeal" of the AfD finding would be WP:DRV. On that basis User:TransporterMan (the DRN page coordinator) may want to consider closing this proposed case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Kingdom of Yugoslavia
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Stale. Past its 14-day life span at DRN and no volunteer has chosen to take the case. Consider 3O, MEDCOM, or RFC as an alternate source of dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Several changes were made a lot of days ago by User:James Lindberg on the article Kingdom of Yugoslavia. He insisted on the existence of ethnic Macedonians and separate Macedonian language in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but they (the edits) were simply unsourced POV and thus I have removed them. I have provided reliable sources and discussed the issue on the talk page. On the next day the changes were reverted by User:Direktor. His motivation was very strange: "Eveybody knows all this, Jingiby, but to put it simply: we don't write our articles with contemporary terminology - we use modern, up-to-date terms." I have explained that even sources that were in the article do not support the changes made by User:James Lindberg, etc. My exoplaination was followed by several reverts made by the same User. Even the tag added by me on the running dispupe was removed. The answeres I have received on talk page were like: 'I am not going to waste time here" and "I am very familiar with this issue". No one source was provided. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have provided a lot of additional historical academic sources on the talk page. How do you think we can help? The dispute can be resolved on the base of the historical leading view with the help of provided sources and NPOV can be reached, I belive. Summary of dispute by DirectorPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Jingiby appears to be very proud of the fact that he understands some basic facts about the emergence of the modern Macedonian nation, and occasionally likes to lecture people on how Macedonians didn't really exist until relatively recently. He doesn't seem able to understand that, if the Macedonian nationality didn't officially form prior to a certain date - that certainly doesn't mean we're now going to effectively erase mention of the nationality up to that point. Very few nations can be said to have existed in the manner discussed by Jingiby prior to the age of nationalism in the late 18th and 19th centuries; and in interwar Yugoslavia (the subject of the dispute), no nations (including Serbs, Croats, etc) officially existed besides the enforced "Yugoslav nation" and the "Serbian, Croatian, and Slovene nation" (singular). Frankly I am very concerned what damage of this sort Jingiby has done all over the project, and am tempted to start following his contribs. His edits and POV-pushing run essentially in-line with Greater Bulgarian claims on Macedonia, and are targeted towards downplaying the independence of the Macedonian nationality (as separate from Bulgarian nationality). The sources quoted by Jingiby are reliable and fine, but all they do is explain how and at what point the Macedonian nationality formed. And none of that is disputed. What is disputed, however, is Jingiby's insistence that here on Wikipedia we must effectively erase mention of Macedonians as a nationality prior to when it was officially recognized (i.e. replace it with some OR term like "Macedonian Slavs"). And for the record, I'm not Macedonian... :) -- Director (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Kingdom of Yugoslavia discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Futile. Participation in dispute resolution is always voluntary. Since the editor who represents one side of this dispute does not care to participate here, as is her right, this listing is futile. A request for comments might be considered to bring additional editors into the discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Basically, a while back, I went through all of the user warning templates and manually linked the images that require attribution in their licenses to their image page, in order to fulfill the attribution requirement. I randomly decided to check on Template:uw-vandalism1, and found an unrelated edit war started by User:Codename Lisa who solely kept trying to remove the hidden comment in the template that is used by bots and scripts to know what template is on the user talk page because the templates are substituted. It was on the basis that someone might be offended or something by knowing what the template is called. Three different users reverted the three edits by User:Codename Lisa trying to implement the change. Right before the full protection, User:DavidLeighEllis randomly unlinked the image. I took it the talk page and User:Redrose64 and User:me_and agreed with me that it requires attribution currently. User:Codename Lisa believes that it is not original enough in the eyes of the law to qualify for copyright protection. I invited User:Codename Lisa to discuss the image license down at Commons:Image:Information.svg because as User:me_and put it "either it gets tagged as public domain or it gets attribution; since the former hasn't happened, the latter should." Codename Lisa thought that this would be disruptive editing for some reason. I take no position on whether or not it is original enough, just that right now, without consensus, it needs attribution. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussing it on the talk page. Offering ways to implement the change with consensus that Codename Lisa seeks. How do you think we can help? Offer an outside opinion. See whether there is a consensus. Summary of dispute by Redrose64Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I'm in England, where the clocks currently follow UTC, so I was fast asleep at the time that the thread Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Edit Request was first raised, but the page was already on my watchlist, so I first saw it when reviewing my watchlist that morning; this was several hours after Codename Lisa had first responded. If I had got there first, I would have proceeded with Ramaksoud2000's request, for the reasons that I gave in my post of 11:39, 8 November 2013: basically, that all images whose licenses begin with the letters CC-BY require attribution, without exception. I offer no arguments as to the applicability of the license(s) borne by the image in question, but I am certain that we should comply with the license currently applied to the image, not with the license that should have been applied. I am aware of the dispute at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Flagging templates in the source code, which I consider to be unrelated; but I have not (yet) contributed to that. Were I to do so, it would be in favour of retaining the hidden Summary of dispute by me_and(I am not going to discuss the dispute which led to the template being locked; I don't think it's immediately relevant to this dispute.) The talk page discussion as it stands has myself, Ramaksoud2000 and Redrose64 in favour of re-linking the image, with Codename Lisa opposed. As such, Beeblebrox refused to make the edit and suggested dispute resolution. Given Beeblebrox wasn't willing to consider this sufficient consensus, I disagree with Codename Lisa and think dispute resolution is a sensible next step. The question here is whether that image should, right now, have a link to provide attribution. Right now, that image is marked with a licence that requires attribution, and so I believe it should. If at some point in the future the image is decided to be public domain I'd be happy to remove the link. But we're talking about what we should do now, not at some point in the indefinite future when Commons have decided the image is PD. I'm confused why Codename Lisa objects to the image link; I understand why they think it's unnecessary, but not why "unnecessary" translates to "objectionable". I also do not understand why Codename Lisa states it would be "gross disruptive editing" to propose the image get a PD tag at Commons. Given the four editors supporting relinking (including DavidLeighEllis by my reading of his comment below: "I have no objection to relinking it if necessary for copyright reasons, which does appear to be the case"), the only objector is Codename Lisa. I'd call that consensus for returning the link. —me_and 11:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Codename LisaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Hello. I read the dispute overview above and I am afraid I do not believe this discussion merit a mediation in DRN. For the start, the initiator has started the discussion by argumentum ad hominem, directly accusing me of having edit warred in an unrelated discussion. (Note that even the involved admin did not say so.) As for discussing it on Commons:File talk:Information.svg or File talk:Information.svg, I never said no. There is just no such discussion to participate in. Overall, the correct course of action would have been to take the image for a license review because one single editor saying oppose in good faith never merits a DRN discussion. As such, I am afraid I have to turn down your polite offer to have a chat in this venue, as it is the wrong venue. Best regards, Summary of dispute by DavidLeighEllisPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Although I unlinked the image, I have no objection to relinking it if necessary for copyright reasons, which does appear to be the case. Also, I support having the template name in a wikitext comment, since this is clearly needed for copyright reasons, so that substitutions of the template are properly identified. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Lane splitting
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before requesting assistance here. Though Jusjih says, "I have tried to discuss at Talk:Lane splitting unsuccessfully," he has in fact only made two edits at the article talk page and those were mostly unresponsive to the points Dennis Bratland has raised. I'm not saying that Bratland is or is not right, but he is raising points worth serious discussion, especially those involving primary sourcing and original research. Once those have been thoroughly discussed, this dispute may come back here or to a different dispute resolution venue if agreement cannot be reached, but this is not ripe for dispute resolution at this point in time. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview User:Dennis Bratland is engaging in reverting war to his "preferred" version, i.e. the same as 15:03, 19 October 2013 and 03:10, 10 November 2013, while also restoring some dead links that others have attempted to fix, without regard to others' good-faith edits. Yet he would restore parts of Europe and Japan unsourced in intro but be so strict on others.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to discuss at Talk:Lane splitting unsuccessfully, as User:Dennis Bratland remains so aggressive and self-centered, without regard to others' good-faith edits. How do you think we can help? Please check if reverting to 28 October 2013 ChrisGualtieri's version is feasible, but with the sortable table of lane splitting legality into a collapsible table as at China_and_the_United_Nations#Republic_of_China_in_the_UN_.281945-1971.29 where a collapsible and sortable table titled "Voting records of the United Nations General Assembly Resolutions 505 and 2758" accommodates those who do and do not wish to read it. Or there must be certain other wiki to host the table. Wikibooks? Summary of dispute by Dennis BratlandWe must have good secondary sources for this list. Judges and police and lawyers don't agree that the law codes cited mean what the Wikipedia articles is claiming that they mean. I would go so far as to say that lane splitting is an excellent example to use to illustrate when it's a mistake to use a primary source. The other sourcing problem is that this list is doomed to be a kind of permastub. Before we removed it last time, it was all crowdsourced and sat around for years waiting for sources. Many of the entries were wrong because the were based on personal experience -- "I never get ticketed for lane splitting!" or amateur lawyering. Next is the list of 49 US States. We have at least three high quality sources that say California is the only US state that allows it. What is the point of enumerating the other 49? The third issue is that this is how to advice. Note the completely unsourced claim that the necessity defense applies to lane splitting. Why is that original research there if not as legal advice? An encyclopedia cannot be your motorcycle rider's manual. You must refer to your local laws yourself. The only point of this list is to serve as a travel guide or rider's manual. One theory is that the real purpose of the list is activism and advocacy. There is a lively Internet movement to legalize lane splitting in other US states, but it has received zero coverage in sources that meet Wikipedia's standards. Jushih implied the goal of listing all 49 states was to add links to some of the failed bills to legalize lane splitting. These bills were dead on arrival, few made it out of committee and those few that did never made it out of one house. There is no RL non-Internet movement to legalize lane splitting. If you check Google News, the only articles you'll find are either trying to unmuddy the confusion about California, or reporting on bills to ban lane splitting in California. And those bills got much further than the ones to legalize it. Personally I'd be thrilled to see lane splitting legalized in more places -- especially where I live -- but using this article to raise the profile of this unpopular idea is advocacy, advertising and a violation of WP:UNDUE. A single sentence saying there have been several attempts to legalize it in other states but they didn't get far, is the proper weight that should be given. Not a state-by-state checklist. CáliKewlKid agreed with me that this is how to advice, original research, and that the list of 49 states is unnecessary. I repeatedly explained on the talk page my objections. Jushih ignored us, and now he's here calling me names, "aggressive" and "self-centered"? I waited days between edits for Jushih to reply to us on the talk page. Is that edit warring? Why didn't Jushih reply to CáliKewlKid? Why did he ignore my last comment on talk page and come here instead? Let me know which of these thing we might need to to bring out in more detail. I have copies of the books cited in the article that aren't online and can share quotes or scans as needed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC) (I just restored the link and cite fixes Jushih complained about. He could have used the talk page to resolve that simple oversight instead of coming here over it. The disupte here is over the table. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC) ) Summary of dispute by CáliKewlKidI've never done a dispute resolution, so forgive me if I don't get how this should work. The detailed analysis of my viewpoint are summarized on the Talk Page. I will note that I definitely see value in the table Jusjih added, I wish someone in the world maintained a detailed analysis in a central location but I don't think such a table belongs in the Wikipedia article for a number of reasons. The easiest and least contentious reason is I believe it's just a poor way to relay the information. A table implies a variety of values; for the United States research indicates there is California (allows it) and all other states ban it (by a variety of methods). There's little need for a table in that case. I realize that Jusjih probably had to work very hard to research and create the table. I hate to see that goto waste, it would be very frustrating if I had worked that hard to gather sources and it was just deleted. However, I think the detailed analysis belongs on a personal website (or perhaps a website with a motorcycle forum). Hopefully this can be resolved in a positive manner. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by RracecarrPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Lane splitting discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Jack Ruby
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Administrative close. There are other editors involved in this discussion who are not listed here and the ones who were listed were not listed in a manner in which the listing bot could use to notify them. Please relist using only the involved users precise usernames so that a volunteer does not have to manually notify and create a discussion section for each one. If you relist, you might want to also rethink your "How do you think we can help?" response: "help us all publish the facts, whether people like them or not" sounds very SOAPish. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview After conducting extensive research, I made a serious contribution to this article and cited the appropriate references to source materials. It was my intent to bring the article up to date, since much information has been declassified over the past 50 years. My contribution was immediately reverted. When I restored it, explaining why, I was accused of engaging in an edit war. I then conducted further research to provide addition backup to my contribution. It was again reverted. Claims of "common sense", "conspiracy theory" and, best of all "zillions of other sources" (the intellectual equivalent of "since everybody says so, so do we") are being used against my solidly referenced and carefully worded contribution. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have made posted in "Talk" and messaged the reverters. They continue to undo rather than engage in discussion with me. How do you think we can help? Please read my contribution, check my references and take whatever measures are necessary to help us all publish the facts, whether people like them or not. Thank you in advance for your guidance. Summary of dispute by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.196.22.229Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ContiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JpgordonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Jack Ruby discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
The Simpsons
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard and all other mediated forms of content dispute resolution at Wikipedia. If the other editor or editors will not discuss, consider the suggestions which I make here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There are two individual editors who has kept reverting edits that had to do with removing the adult genre. The reference for that matter is not reliable, nor it does not fit the content of the show, that's why it has been removed. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to discuss it in the Reference Desk, but I have received criticism of my edits on the article by AmericanDad86, accusing me of 3RRing when I didn't even pass it that day, in which the user also discuss off topic stuff that had nothing to do with the issue. How do you think we can help? We can agree to remove the genre, and not re-add it, as when the day it was a featured article back in 2007, here, there was no genre on the article stating that it was only for adults. Summary of dispute by AmericanDad86Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Grapesoda22Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The Simpsons discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Autism
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Futile. With one editor declining to participate, as is their right (participation in dispute resolution is always voluntary), this listing is not going to be fruitful. A Third Opinion or request for comments does not require all parties' participation, but mere further discussion at the article talk page would be better. - TransporterMan (TALK) 22:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I found a passage which I personally found unclear. I marked it "huh?" although another editor reverted, I think due to a misunderstanding. On the talk page, there was another discussion of the same paragraph, and I mentioned the passage, and my uncertainty about what it was supposed to mean. Other editors thought it was perfectly clear, though I don't know what they thought it was supposed to mean. One encouraged us to just check the sources and do the edits, rather than asking around on the talk page, so I checked the source, and rewrote the passage so it would be clear. Later, Laser Brain came across my edit, thought my version was ungrammatical, and reversed it to the version I found unclear. I took this as a mistake, mentioned that mine was grammatical [in AmE it is], and the old version unclear, and reverted. Pretty soon Laser Brain came over to my talk page to accuse me of edit-warring and threaten to block me from editing. I raised the issue on the article talk page. I feel that we should try to make the passage as clear as possible for as many readers as possible. And if Laser Brain finds my passage unclear, I'd like to find one which is clear. I also feel attacked, and that makes it hard to focus on the editing. I don't know if Laser Brain feels the same way. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've discussed this on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Since I think there's a need for clarification, since Laser Brain and I don't agree about the grammar, and since I think we should try to be as clear and as grammatical to as many readers as possible, maybe someone can help hash out a version which satisfies my concerns about the meaning, and Laser Brain's and anyone else's concerns about the grammar. Summary of dispute by Laser_brainI'm not sure why Ananiujitha is so impatient. They posted to Talk:Autism with complaints about the wording of the passage in question less than 24 hours ago, tagging it in the article body as needing clarification. SandyGeorgia told Ananiujitha to go read the source for clarification, and Dbrodbeck removed the tag. Ananiujitha then changed the wording to an ungrammatical mess, which I reverted. They changed it again, and then re-added the original tag when I once again reverted the ungrammatical edit. Autism is a Featured Article and we can't have these problems introduced. For the record, I did not threaten to use admin tools against this user; I threatened to report them for edit warring if they persisted in introducing problems into the article. I've asked Ananiujitha to remove the tag they place in the article but they have ignored me. This should be closed as premature and unnecessary. --Laser brain (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Autism discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Plasma Cosmology
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | As it says at the top of this page, we cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.[26] —-Guy Macon (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2013 (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 A statement is made in the article regarding the sociological status of a scientific paradigm without any polling data or research to support that statement. Example, it is claimed that a theory is "mostly rejected". This is a sociological and anthropological claim. It has no support, is irrelevant, and should be removed. Have you tried to resolve this previously? sociological and anthropological statements on this matter should be omitted. There is no reason to say whether a theory is accepted or rejected unless there is polling data from a polling firm like Zogby to support this assertion. How do you think we can help? Inform individual that anthropology and sociological polling does not exist to support his claim and the claim is irrelevant to the topic. Summary of dispute by Arianewiki1User Orrerysky seems to be a new Wikipedia editor in the last few days and has only edited this one page. He Talk:Plasma cosmology writes "@ Arianewiki1, not only are the majority of your comments utterly wrong, a quick check of this topic sees that you are one of the very individuals guilty of the edit warring taking place. I wonder if it my entry that is biased, or your's. In fact, the answer to that question is quite obvious. I am going to seek to have you banned from further contributions to this article. Orrerysky (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)" Already WP:NPA#WHATIS and WP:CIV is in play, and I do openly question the User's motive here. To this WP:DNR, the user then changes the word "rejected" with "unknown", I explain my reasoning, then he immediately changes the page again, then goes this dispute resolution without any further discussion. The topic entitled plasma cosmology is placed under Fringe physics and Fringe science. Here the Fringe science article says; "Fringe science is scientific inquiry in an established field of study that departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories, and is classified in the "fringes" of a credible mainstream academic discipline." Logically, plasma cosmology to most astronomers and cosmologists is therefore correct in saying "Plasma cosmology is a mostly rejected non-standard cosmological model,... " I.e. We know plasma cosmology is consider fringe science. Changing the word "Unknown" is incorrect has a completely different implication. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC) Since writing this, a new user User:Keyriced appeared at Talk:Plasma cosmology, who in his FIRST POST says; "After reviewing the available data I believe that Orrerysky is right to say it should say "mostly unknown" as opposed to "mostly rejected"." Only even minutes later User:Orrerysky again gives a reply to Keyiced supporting his own argument. I do openly question is motive of these actions, who seems to be reinforcing / influencing his views for change. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Plasma Cosmology discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Arianewiki1, I was told that editing wikipedia was a community activity. So, if I inform someone about my doings and they decide to support my efforts, well that appears to be a community effort. This is afterall, a community project, is it not? Let's go back to your other statements, after making several fallacious arguments saying I should be banned for "edit warring" which even the Admin in our discussion will agree never happened. You seem to be pressing the admin to take action. This is called bullying and peer-pressuring and is threatening behavior. I can only assume that you are opposed to have someone move in on "your turf" that you wish to "camp" in order to enforce "your will" on the article. Now, let us go back to the classification of fringe, "fringe" does not mean "rejected" it means "fringe". The efforts of a small group. Furthermore, you have no backing to support your claim regarding widespread acceptance or rejection. Which Sociological or Anthropoligical organization conducted the Poll? Was it Zogby? Perhaps another polling agency? These statements of yours have no support in the publications of any organization. Where is the questionairre that was sent out? What is the statistical variance? What was the size of the polling sample? How were participant selected. You are forcing your own bias into the conversation and making statements without any support backing them up. Furthermore, you have no evidence that your model does not fall under the umbrella of Plasma Cosmology. As Plasma Cosmology makes no determination about the age or extent of the universe, models that might study the radiation from cosmic plasma in order to make calculations about the age of the universe, could quite easily fall under the umbrella of Plasma Cosmology. It is requested that you cease & desist your reversions until you can provide the proper support from a sociological data gathering institute. Orrerysky (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
|
- ^ [http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15988.pdf Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo - Advisory opinion of 22 July 2010