Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 142
 | This is an archive of past discussions on 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 135 | ← | Archive 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | Archive 144 | Archive 145 |
Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement_of_Britain#Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain_Wikipedia_Article_Revision
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed due to the failure of a volunteer moderator to accept the case. I recommend that the filing party request formal mediation. If the other editors do not agree to formal mediation, a Request for Comments maybe in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Obrenović dynasty
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed due to inactivity. The filing party has made statements, and the other registered editor has made a statement that appears to concur, but the unregistered editor has not commented. Participation here is voluntary, and there is nothing that can be done about an editor who will not take part in moderated discussion here. However, editing an article while not discussing one's edits on the article talk page is a form of disruptive editing. The editors should go back to the article talk page and discuss any disagreements. The unregistered editor is reminded that the usual way of dealing with disruptive editing by unregistered editors is semi-protection, so that unregistered editors are very strongly advised to discuss their edits collaboratively, and are also advised to create accounts, which provides various privileges. If discussion on the article talk page is inconclusive, a Request for Comments may be appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Khan Noonien_Singh
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. As noted, there was discussion a year ago. Within the past year, there was a very brief exchange consisting of two posts by each of two editors, which is not enough current discussion. The editors are asked to go back to the talk page for another 24 hours. If discussion is inconclusive, they may refile here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The 1967 Star Trek episode specifically describes in dialog Khan Noonien Singh as being a product of selective breeding. The 1982 movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan]] specifically describes in dialog Khan Noonien Singh as being a product of genetic engineering. There is a consistent effort to make the article inaccurate by the WP:OR of presuming that what was said in the television episode was not what the writer meant, and that what the writer really meant was the phrase in the movie despite what was actually said, a phrase not even existent in the English language in 1967.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? Citing the dialogue in the episode and film as the writers' intended language. Weasel worded, Orwellian twisting is being used to assert that what the writers wrote wasn't really what they intended and that certain Wikipedian editors know what the "real" intent was. How do you think we can help? Making it clear that changing dialog from that stated in order to fit with their fan ideas of what was meant in a Star Trek episode and movie is inappropriate, and keeping the correct version of the article from being constantly changed by people practicing WP:OWN. The idea "that the characters in the screenplays are not reliable sources" for what they say is metaphysical gibberish -- what is said in the episode and movie dialog is in fact what is meant in them. Summary of dispute by IznoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
David began this dispute over a year ago attempting to insert text similar to [1]. A discussion began at Talk:Khan Noonien Singh#RetCon Exists. David appears to believe that it is not WP:OR (specifically WP:SYNTHESIS) to attempt to make this edit. He has not presented a reliable source to back up his claims, and as I have explained on the talk page, the distinction he is seeking to make isn't relevant to the general reader--even if there weren't deeper policy implications. Three separate editors, including the editor that took the article to FA, have reverted him at one point or another, so it may be desirable to glance over the article history as well. --Izno (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by DbrodbeckThank you for the notification, I had no idea. Izno has pretty much summarized my thoughts. I simply was following BRD. I see above quite a bit of commentary about editors and not content. I didn't thank that was cool here, perhaps I am mistaken Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Talk:Khan Noonien_Singh discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Naturopathy
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | General close for several reasons. First, there has been little recent discussion on the article talk page. Second, the filing party has not listed all of the involved editors, and has not notified the editors who have been listed. Third, there has not been a specific content issue mentioned. While a bias is contrary to neutral point of view, that is not a specific content dispute. The editors are advised to discuss further on the talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, a case can be filed here with proper listing and notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Many readers (myself included) feel the entire Naturopathy page is extremely biased. The page attacks the profession, rather than explaining it and letting the reader form a decision on their own. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Use of talk page and message on individual talk page belonging to author. How do you think we can help? Provide a mediator to help eliminate biased content and provide factual, but neutral information. Summary of dispute by NeilNPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by McSlyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Naturopathy discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Tigrayans
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed without prejudice as not filed as a content dispute, and as not listing all of the appropriate editors. The filing party may refile this matter a third time if they, first, list and notify all involved editors, not just one editor, second, identify a specific content issue or content issues about the article, and, third, do not complain about a specific editor. If the filing party is having difficulty with English, they may ask for assistance at the Teahouse or elsewhere, but are reminded that enough ability in the use of English to be able to communicate is essential to collaborative editing of the English Wikipedia, or they may edit a Wikipedia in another language. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Problem with user Otakrem after a long discussion lasting three months, after it was reported Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 1 after that there have been discussions with other users 1, ask the write lock for the user Otakrem on the page tigrayans the problem is a war of senseless changes in section1 Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people of which you complain of the sources that are authoritative sources, ask the page restore, of The Voidwalker 1 with Axumite kings, who has tried to mediate with the words Wikipedia: Accuracy disputes and to warn Otakrem do not change more paragraph Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people but to change it just proving the opposite
I tried with the page Talk: Tigrayans, with the help of other users, with reporting to Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard / Incidents, with my personal page User talk: Sennaitgebremariam How do you think we can help? stopping Otakrem in ruining the work of others Summary of dispute by OtakremPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Tigrayans discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
who has tried to mediate with the words Wikipedia: Accuracy disputes --tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Response to SennaitG Of all of your sources,which one of them claims that the Aksumite kings are "Tigrayans" or "Tigrinyas"?Otakrem (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
edited the article Otakrem, EthiopianHabesha, Soupforone, Richard0048--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
|
Yom Kippur
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | General close. The article should reflect what reliable sources state, and reliable sources render 'Yom Kippur' as 'Day of Atonement'. A very brief explanation in the Etymology section of the history of the Hebrew root is appropriate. Any extended discussion would be original research unless it is attributed to scholars or other reliable sources. Any further issue can be taken to a Request for Comments, but it should be noted that a local RFC (an RFC about an article) does not override Wikipedia policies such as RS and OR. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Serena Williams#Battle_of_the_Sexes
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | The editors state that progress is being made on the talk page. Closing without prejudice. If discussion is inconclusive, this case can be refiled. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Sciences Po
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | As stated, partly a content dispute and partly a conduct dispute. The content issues should be discussed on the article talk page. If discussion with registered editors is inconclusive, this case can be refiled. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Northern Epirus
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Failed. Unfortunately, the statements of the issues have not been sufficiently concise to facilitate compromise. There are several possible next steps. First, the parties can resume discussion on the article talk page. If so, they are advised again that overly long statements do not clarify the issues. Second, the parties can request formal mediation, in which a better trained and more patient mediator might be able, as I have not been, to demand conciseness. Third, if an editor thinks that another editor is engaging in non-permitted synthesis amounting to original research, they can discuss at the original research noticeboard. Fourth, a Request for Comments can be used, but again will have to be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview For over a year now on my part i have engaged other editors in the talkpage about making needed additions based on peer reviewed scholarship to the article. My first port of call was not even to go by WP:BRD. Instead i placed multiple proposals based on peer reviewed scholarship in the talkpage seeking input from other editors (for more see talkpage archive 3, 4, 5, 6). After a complicated discussion where at first i was accused of many things before the scholarship was even considered, some edits eventually got through (with great difficulty) while other additions have not (some remaining in hiatus without response/s). The article overall is about Northern Epirus. The content around this topic is complex. Northern Epirus from a Greek stance represents a region defined by Hellenic culture and heritage. It encompasses areas ranging from Korçë all the way to Gjirokastër areas taking in hundreds of villages. Apart from the southerly Greek speaking areas, this area takes in areas that are inhabited by Muslim Albanians, Orthodox Albanians and Aromanians. For Albanians this area is the southern part of Albania containing numerous sub-regions with its history, culture presented through those. The issue of contention has been around whether inclusion of the Albanian population and element is of relevance to the article. Editors have said to me that no mention of the Albanian element should occur because they are "irrelevant" as the article is about a Greek irredentist concept. Then i was told that it is about Greek culture and heritage and toward the end that i need "Islamic literature" for the discussion, which baffled me. Fundamental problems, questions and gaps remain. To understand the Northern Epirus matter, omission of the Albanian element and the socio-political role it played in the late 19th and early 20th century leaves more questions for a reader. The area in the end became part of Albania, yet how and why that happened and the reasons/context for it are absent and obscure.
I engaged other editors in good faith in the talkpage for a prolonged period (for over a year) and waited for replies/responses from them sometimes for many months. I placed proposals in the talkpage first seeking input without even making additions to the article which is not even Wikipedia policy. I have done this out of respect for others knowing the article can stir passions. Recently i did things through WP:BRD and edits were reverted and the talkpage discussion reaching an impasse.
As a Wikipedia editor since 2008, I used the talkpage to resolve things through good faith and respectful dialogue and its my first use of the DRN. Regarding this matter, i seek clarification of where to go forward with the editing process. Is the Albanian element of relevance to the article ? Am i misguided or not in seeking to have sentences based on peer reviewed scholarship that deal with the Albanian element and socio-political issues? (Also see article history revision page of my [reverted] edits). Summary of dispute by AtheneanThe main issue is that Resnjari wants to add material that is off-topic and POV. And a lot of it. Many of the sources he uses do not mention Northern Epirus at all, they are lengthy discussions on questions of identity in the Ottoman Empire and are general in nature. In other articles this has resulted in bloated articles that are essentially unreadable (e.g. Upper Reka and Islam in Albania). This is a problem in the tp discussions as well. As this user is unable to be succinct, it has resulted in bloated discussions that are impossible to follow. Athenean (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AlexikouaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Northern Epirus discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorI am opening this case for moderated dispute resolution. I expect every editor to check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and to respond to any requests within 48 hours. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements do not clarify issues. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, not to discuss editors. Uncivil comments, or complaints about other editors, may be hatted. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to me and to the community, not to each other. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Discuss the article here; discussion at the article talk page or on user talk pages may be overlooked. I have no particular knowledge of the subject matter and expect the editors to explain the issues clearly and concisely. Now - Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they believe are the issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC) First statements by editorsResnjariRegarding a recommendation here on length, the articles will be split: Upper Reka (a separate one on culture and another on dialect) and Islam in Albania (whole Ottoman era as a separate Islamisation of Albania article), as per WP:SPLIT. Of the Northern Epirus article, the issue is the relevance of Albanians to the subject matter of Northern Epirus. My edits have been contested because for example editors have said that Albanians are irrelevant [6] as they are not cited directly in the material related to Northern Epirus, etc. As editors themselves cited the term's usage as being in a irredentist way [7], a number scholars have refrained from using the term (apart from a few [8] and others Greek). When scholars referred to events and issues that took place in the region, southern Albania is used (i.e: Nitsiakos' work: [9]) or if in the late Ottoman era, the two main administrative units or Kazas/Sanjaks of Gjirokastër (also Agyrokastro and Ergiri) and Korçë (Koritsa and Görice) are used that cover areas defined as Northern Epirus (i.e Kokolakis [10]). Moreover official Greek government statistics (by settlement) compiled by the Greek army staff (who cites in whole both Gjirokastër and Korçë kazas/sanjaks) that was presented to the Paris Peace conference (regarding territorial claims) acknowledges the presence of Albanian speakers (the Muslim element): 111,534 Muslim Albanians to 116, 888 Greeks [11] [12]. The comment/s that the Albanian element was insignificant is untenable. These numbers are relevant to the article as for one it was the then official Greek government view. I repeatedly asked editors for a response [13] and got none. Also Wolfgang Stoppel who is peer reviewed gives numbers about the religious composition of the two sanjaks (early 20th century), pp. 9-10: [14]. My additions of these has been called cherry picking, yet no additional or other numbers have been given by editors [15]). To get a grasp of why Northern Epirus became part of Albania and why it has remained a irredentist concept, the large Albanian element was the main factor. As is presented now, the article gives the impression that the region was wholly Greek populated that became part of Albania and that the Albanian element present there was the result of some kind of "Albanianisation", (while not giving context about this population, their issues and its historical presence within a few sentences as i did: [16]; [17]; [18]; [19]; [20]). Much of the content already in the article is based on sources that do not even use the term Northern Epirus, but Epirus in a generic way such as all the ancient era sections (i asked editors about the relevance of these) and have had different replies (i.e: [21]). Even some of the scholarship used to write up the contemporary era does not cite Northern Epirus, but is there because it only refers to Greeks. If one was to take editors comments about only adding content directly citing the term Northern Epirus and POV, then either the ancient section ought to be transferred to the generic Epirus article and likewise a large chunk on the contemporary era to the Greeks in Albania article. Even so, the Albanian element for this article is still of significance and understanding as to why the area became part of Albania. Before other matters are discussed some clarification of these by other editors. Best. Resnjari (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Too long, didn't read. Overly long statements do not clarify issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Second statement by moderatorWill each editor please make a one-paragraph statement of what they think the issue or issues are involving the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Second statements by editorsResnjariThe issue of contention is whether citing the Albanian element in a few sentences is of relevance to the Northern Epirus article. My edits have been contested because for example editors have said Albanians are irrelevant [22] as they are not cited directly in Northern Epirus material. Editors themselves acknowledged the terms irredentist usage [23], and a number scholars refrain from using the term (apart from a few [24]). When scholars referred to regional events/issues that took place: southern Albania is used (i.e: Nitsiakos: [25]) or if in the late Ottoman era, the two main administrative units or Kazas/Sanjaks of Gjirokastër and Korçë are used that covers area defined as Northern Epirus (i.e Kokolakis [26]). Moreover official Greek government statistics compiled by the Greek army staff (citing both Gjirokastër and Korçë kazas/sanjaks) presented to the Paris Peace conference (regarding territorial claims) acknowledges the presence of Albanian speakers (the Muslim element): 111,534 Muslim Albanians to 116, 888 Greeks [27] [28]. I asked editors for a response [29] and got none. Peer reviewed Wolfgang Stoppel also gives numbers about religious composition of the two sanjaks (early 20th century), pp. 9-10: [30]. My additions of these has been called cherry picking, yet no additional or other numbers have been given by editors [31]). Before other matters are discussed, some clarification of these as needed or not additions to the article (for the demographics section) by other editors. Best.Resnjari (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC) AtheneanThe issue is that Resnjari is trying to add material that is not really related to the article. He does so by insisting on adding material from sources that are not about Northern Epirus. For example, the Stoppel source he is so fond of doesn't mention Epirus or northern Epirus once, and includes areas far outside northern Epirus that conveniently include large concentrations of Muslim Albanians. And that is pretty much the only source he is interested in as far as demographics, and is incredibly insistent on it. He also adds out of context pics of mosques that have nothing to do with the article just to make a point, and then edit-wars to have his way [32]. He mischaracterizes other people's comments (e.g. the stuff above about someone having said Albanians are irrelevant and its bogus diff). From his comment above it is quite evident he doesn't like the term "Northern Epirus" and is basically bent on turning the article into "Southern Albania". Athenean (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Third statement by moderatorThe main issue that has been identified at this time is that one editor wishes to add material that another editor thinks is outside the scope of the article. Will each editor please state concisely what the contested material is and why they think that it is or is not relevant to the article? If there is any other issue, will they please explain this concisely? Remember that overly long statements do not clarify issues. Remember that an article should be about its subject and not related subjects; see the coatrack essay for a discussion of irrelevant material (the coats rather than the coatrack are what are seen). In particular, Northern Epirus is a historical region, which predates the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans, and discussion of the medieval or modern history or the present day seems to be of marginal relevance. (If any editor thinks that medieval or modern material is important, they should explain the importance.) Be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Third statements by editorsResnjariRegarding demographics, the Greek state's official position was given at the Paris peace conference (1919)[33] of Northern Epirus (by settlement) in a bilingual Greek/French book titled Hartis Ethnografikos tis Voriou Epirou/Carte Ethnografique of l' Epir Du Nord . Within this classification the whole Gjirokaster and Korce kazas or regions are cited (p.3)[34] as Northern Epirus and the numbers of 111,534 Muslim Albanians to 116, 888 Greeks given. The Greek state itself acknowledged this large presence, why omit these numbers when the map [35] from this publication is also used in the article [36] with no qualms about it? About geography some clarification. A more recent peer reviewed publication on this topic cites the entire Gjirokaster/Korce provinces within the scope of Northern Epirus. Austin (2012) cites this twice [37]. p. 91: "Greece had been steadfast in its demands that southern Albania, or Northern Epirus, should become part of Greece.; Greece's position... sought territorial gains in the southern provinces of Gjirokaster and Korce." p. 92. "The Greek claim to Albanian territory is hard to define precisely, but would include the area south of a line drawn near Korce in the east to Vlore on Albania's Adriatic coast, encompassing essentially the entire provinces of Gjirokaster and Korce. Since the region was almost 25% of Albanian territory..." I used Stoppel because he cited religious demographics for Gjirokaster/ Korca regions referring to period of the Northern Epirus question and is peer reviewed/recent too. Editors who have expressed reservations have not offered explanation or shown why all this is wrong. Ancient period sections mainly use sources that refer to historical Epirus, not Northern Epirus. Scholarship sees Northern Epirus as a modern political construct (i.e see: pp: 450-451 [38]). I.e, German Wiki article [39] is structured from modern era (using Stoppel numbers too). Even stuff on the contemporary era in the Eng. Wiki article at times uses sources not refering to Northern Epirus, but is there because it refers to Greeks. For now i will leave it at that, though there is more to discuss on other things too. Best. Resnjari (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Too long, difficult to read. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderatorWill each editor please state concisely what material the dispute is about? The emphasis is on being concise. I may have to fail this discussion due to inability of the filing party to present a concise case. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC) Fourth statements by editorsHere's a very simple explanation that illustrates what is wrong with Resnjari's approach. He cites one source that defines Northern Epirus as encompassing the kazas (ottoman provinces) of Korce and Gjirokaster, but then he uses another source (Stoppel) for the demographics of said provinces. This is the very definition of W:SYNTH, as Stoppel makes no mention of the term "Northern Epirus". It is also dead wrong since Stoppel's data is from 1927, thus from the period of the Albanian state, and not the ottoman empire. The albanian provinces of Korce and gjirokaster do not correspond to the ottoman kazas. This is exactly why wikipedia has WP:SYNTH as a guideline. Athenean (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC) ResnjariPart of the dispute is about numbers and their relevance to the article. Greek government numbers (1919) cite the term Northern Epirus (in the title) [40]. Should it be in the article, considering the proposed approach about having material only citing Northern Epirus ? Regarding Stoppel, apart from 1927 he also gives numbers for 1923 and importantly 1908 (Ottoman) all regarding Gjirokaster/Korca provinces/areas. (p.9-10) [41] Austin also gives numbers in relation to Greek claims of the area (p.92) [42] citing northern Epirus and says that the Greeks based it on the Ottoman numbers of 1908. Moreover if we took the premise to the next level about material citing only the term Northern Epirus, then 3 sections on the ancient period (which cites historical Epirus - no irredentist/political concept of Northern Epirus existed back then), most of the Ottoman period (until the 1870s when Greek claims on the area began due to eastern crisis) and much of the contemporary era (which has content relating to Greeks in Albania, yet not Northern Epirus) should go. Scholarship treats Northern Epirus as a political term/concept (pp: 450-451: [43]) and invoking Athenean's premise, then having most of that content would constitute POV as the scholarship used has nothing to do with Northern Epirus. It should either be transferred to the appropriate articles and or deleted outright. Otherwise most of the article as it stands now is already synthesis and POV. Some clarification on this at least ?Resnjari (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderatorUnfortunately, I still don't understand exactly what any editor wants to add to or subtract from the article? If you want to add something, provide the exact text that you want to add. If you want to subtract something, indicate where the existing text is. If you want to leave the article alone, say so. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Fifth statements by editorsY'all have more rounds than some boxing matches. Just interjecting. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Resnjarilol, ok - point taken. I'll just stick to the issue of numbers/demographics for now. The article as it stands now has a whole host of numbers in the demographics section. These pertain to the ethno-linguistic makeup of the area defined as Northern Epirus. Other editors voiced the position that scholarship citing the term Northern Epirus is applicable/acceptable to the article and content/sentences should be based around them while those that don't cite the term should not be there. Ok, then should not the Greek government Paris Peace conference numbers in a Greek government publication citing the term Northern Epirus be included in the article due to relevance to the topic that gives the Greek numbers of Albanians also [44] ? Additionally for consideration into the article are numbers from Austin who also cites Greek government numbers used to claim the area. Austin states that Greece used Ottoman numbers compiled in 1908 for the Paris peace conference to claim the area (p. 92. [45]). Should they also not be in the article as the scholar used the term Northern Epirus (p. 91) in his analysis ? First i'll get clarification on just these two issues first. Is their citing in the article of relevance to the topic ? Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
|
![[35]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:EpireDuNOrd1913.jpg){kind=link}
Maxine Feldman
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | The problems described are conduct issues, not content issues, and DRN only handles content issues. Make requests for page protection here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:2016 Uri_attack#Other_Nations
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Moot/block evasion. Filing editor blocked indefinitely as sockpuppet. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User is asked to remove references which are not related to this article. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2016_Uri_attack Have you tried to resolve this previously? 1. Talk Page 2. NPOV Notice Board How do you think we can help? Requested to provide relevant information or provide justification on current reference. Talk:2016 Uri_attack#Other_Nations discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
User talk:Sitush, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Buff_4u2000
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. On the one hand, this case has been improperly filed because it does not specify the article about which there is a dispute. On the other hand, even more importantly, there has been no discussion on an article talk page, so that this thread is closed without prejudice. See bold, revert, discuss. The filing party has edited boldly, and has been reverted. The editors should now discuss the proposed edits on an article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, this case may be refiled here if it is filed properly, listing the article in dispute, and with proper notice to other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Bret Hart
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | This isn't starting off well. Closing this case before it is opened because it has started off with uncivil commentary on contributors. If the editors want to settle this dispute amicably, it can be refiled here without uncivil commentary. If there is a specific issue about the lead of the article, a Request for Comments may be used. Personal attacks may be reported at WP:ANI, but read the boomerang essay first. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I have an issue with the lead of the article. Since I'm tired of arguing with the editors here and I'm not really an editor myself, but only a reader, I'm passing the ball to someone else who may want or may not want to alert some higher-ups. To sum it up, the intro says, and I quote, that << [Bret] Hart changed the perception of mainstream wrestling in the early 1990s by bringing technical in-ring performance to the fore >>. [no source] It appeared really puffery to me, so I asked for clarification. An editor, Warlock82, said that it was reported in an IGN article and that they had just reworded everything a little. Per WP:PEACOCK I said that the quote should have been reported as a quote and not as a fact (and proposed an edit that reflected the policy), yet Warlock82 and other editors kept rolling back everything, with Warlock82 even going as far claiming that I had been vandalizing the article. This was my proposed revision: << according to IGN, Hart winning the WWF title in 1992 "changed the entire industry, re-setting the WWF back to the days of technical wizardry and reshaping all our notions of what a great wrestling match should actually look and feel like".>> [added source: article, quoted ad litteram from the source I received from Warlock82] In the talk page, the argument eventually evolved into the claim by three other editors that the bit in the lead was ultimately "a widespread opinion" and that my proposed edit was worse for some undisclosed reason. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussed plenty in the talk page. As far as I'm concerned, I've only received links to policies that ultimately did not support the opposing party's view. How do you think we can help? This is simply a matter of making the editors remember the style and format of Wikipedia. This is a case of peacock words. The only certain fact here is that a "journalist said this wrestler did this", not that the wrestler "changed the perception of the industry": this is simply what's - more or less - reported in IGN's article by some journalist; furthermore, it is a symbolical assertion that can't be proven. This is almost a carbon-copy of the Bob Dylan example in the "peacock" paragraph of the manual of style. Summary of dispute by Warlock82Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The user who kicked off the dispute was recently trying to force uncited hero worship into Eddie Guerrero. After failing to find sources supporting his desired hagiography and having it gutted, he seems to have turned to revenge editing. His angle is that we cannot use a WP:RS (in this case IGN, a reputable entertainment site with a dedicated wrestling section) to support consensus opinion regarding Hart's impact on the business and must state that we're giving only the cited publication's opinion. What he's not grasping (or choosing to ignore) is that the site's opinion is NOT being used: we're using its article as an RS to support consensus opinion. Since the beginning of time here on Wiki, we've used reliable sources to support consensus opinion on films, albums, books and everything else, so I see nothing wrong with the article. Also, I'm NOT the IP's only opposition here. There's clearly an emerging consensus against his proposal at the Bret Hart talk page. Warlock82 (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Talk:Bret Hart discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Just wanted to add that I notified Warlock82 in his talk page right after I had started the dispute resolution, it does look like he's AFK right now, though. 151.19.28.154 (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC) As you can see, Warlock82 is resorting again to obnoxious and unhortodox personal attacks and to me this only makes him appear more biased. I'll keep my stance because this would be a simple matter of taking a look at WP:PEACOCK, stop arguing and report the fact. The fact being that it IGN said that Bret Hart winning the WWF title changed the perception of WWF fans. Two or three editors agreeing with him won't make his stance any more credible or me any less credible. The only incredible thing here is if anything saying that two or three editors agreeing with him amounts to an "emerging consensus", which if anything still goes against the policies. 151.38.52.163 (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
That's not, because "name calling" and ad personam is not a proper line of defense. I may as well go on and say YOU and the editors are biased because that's what it looks like to me. Name calling is another thing Wikipedia policies are against. On topic, as eloquently proven, your contrived line of logic only gives leeway to more and more contradictions. And yes, even IGN saying "this is the best" or "this or that is one of the best" is using IGN's opinion in a journalistic sense. You're not supposed to be the judge here in saying what changed "the perception" and what not. It's nearly absurd that I have to state the obvious. 151.57.117.210 (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, according to you it's not being used. According to me, it is being used. WP:VNT refers to this exactly with the hypno-toad example. We disagree = the opinable part gets reworded objectively, reporting the fact per WP:PEACOCK, which basically has "Bob Dylan was a revolutionary fellow" being switched out for "Time said this about Bob Dylan: *quote*". That's how things are supposed to be done, and I'm even more convinced after spending a fair amount of time re-reading every consultable policy. We have done it for Guerrero's article as well - which was, even more appropriately, reworded with "according to Fox News, he was one of the in-ring greats". By the by, those parts in Guerrero's article have even been moved out entirely from the lead at the moment, but I don't think anyone is making a fuss over there anymore, right? Again, the double-standards in the Wikipedia wrestling project appear kind of apparent to me. 151.57.117.210 (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
|
Talk:Bain family_murders#Joe_Karam
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Impasse reached. One editor wants to include the beliefs or state of mind of the author and another editor objects (and the moderator is inclined to agree with the objection). The recommended next step is a Request for Comments on the disputed language. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The intro to the article on the Bain family murders reads: "Bain's case was taken up by businessman and former All Black, Joe Karam." After his name I added "who believed that David was innocent." These words has been removed by three different editors. The reality is that Joe Karam fought for 13 years to prove David was innocent. He wrote four books about the case. One of them is called:" 'Innocent!: seven critical flaws in the conviction of David Bain." The title makes it clear that the author (Karam), thinks David was innocent. I have also provided numerous other sources on the Talk page which show that those who have read any of Joe karam's books understand that Karam clearly thinks David Bain is innocent. Unbelievably, two editors, Akldguy and Melcous, refuse to accept Joe Karam's own books as reliable sources on what Joe Karam believes about David Bain's innocence. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to persuade them that there is no better source on what Joe karam believes about David Bain's innocence than his own books on the case, especially the one called "'Innocent!: seven critical flaws in the conviction of David Bain." How do you think we can help? Try to persuade Akld guy and Melcous of this simple logic. Summary of dispute by Akld guyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There is very little that I can add to what I have already pointed out to Histrange on the article's Talk page, summed up as follows. Joe Karam got involved with the case soon after David Bain was found guilty, in 1995-1996. It is absurd to suggest that WP can state what Karam believed about Bain's guilt or innocence. Nobody can possibly know what he believed. Even if a reliable reference were to turn up (and Histrange has not been able to find one) quoting Karam saying that he believed Bain to be innocent, we could say only that Karam said that he believed in his innocence. Karam's primary motivation seems to have been to publicize and put right a miscarriage of justice conviction. As with a defence attorney, the only public face he could present was that Bain was not guilty, even though he might have believed the opposite. Defence attorneys frequently have to do that. Histrange is attempting to draw a conclusion about Karam's state of mind, based on book titles and book reviewers' opinions of what Karam believed. That is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Akld guy (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MelcousThe disputed text was added by Histrange and reverted by 2 different editors - Akld guy, and DiscoStuart. Histrange then opened a discussion on the article talk page, and left a message on my talk page asking me to comment. I agreed with the view of the other two editors, for similar although not completely identical reasons. Histrange has obviously not found these reasons compelling, although he has not responded to all of them. Histrange was in particular asked to provide sources stating that Karam actually held this belief, and I do not see that in the sources he has provided. The latest two sources he provided were a blogpost and a review on goodreads, which I have pointed out are both WP:UGC. As I have stated on the article talk page, I don't think the proposed text is necessary (particularly given the contentious editing history of the article, where statements like this have been added, and then alternative views added, and things start to get quite consulted). I also think if it was to be included, it should be in the body, not the lead. And finally, I agree with Akld guy and DiscoStuart that there is no reliable source provided that states that this was Karam's state of mind/belief at the time. Melcous (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Talk:Bain family_murders#Joe_Karam discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorI am opening this case for moderated discussion. Each editor is expected to check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and to respond to questions within 48 hours. Be civil and concise, and comment on content, not contributors. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements do not clarify things. The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article, not to discuss the editors. Uncivil statements or statements criticizing other editors may be hatted. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress here. Discuss the article here, because discussion on the article talk page, while permitted, may be ignored. I do not claim any knowledge about the case; I expect the editors to provide me with the required knowledge. Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they think are the issues about the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC) First statements by editorsThis dispute is over one phrase (in italics) in one sentence: "Bain's case was taken up by businessman and former All Black, Joe Karam who believed that David was innocent." The other editors keep deleting the part in italics claiming there was no evidence to prove that's what Karam believed at the start of his involvement (in 1995). As a compromise, I then proposed the phrase: ...who came to believe David was innocent. They refused to accept that either. This dispute boils down to reliability of sources. Wiki articles must be based on reliable sources. There are three kinds of sources: primary, secondary and tertiary. See WP:NOR where it says: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Joe Karam was directly involved in David Bain's case. He was so involved, he wrote four books about it (published 1997, 2000, 2001, and 2012). See Support of Joe Karam Since he was directly involved, that means his books on the case are primary sources. Here's the title of his third book: "Innocent!: seven critical flaws in the conviction of David Bain." Melcous thinks (see Talk page): "The title of his book is a conclusion looking back on the whole thing..." In fact in 2001, the appeals were still going on and Bain was still in prison; the retrial at which he was found not guilty wasn't until 2009. So Karam was still looking forward. But if the title of the book is a 'conclusion', then Karam's conclusion, with which Melcous concurs, is that David is "Innocent!" There is only one matter left in doubt. When exactly did Karam come to believe this? He clearly believed it as early as 2001. But who really knows and it really doesn't matter. He very clearly, as documented "came to believe that David was innocent." This is an accurate description of the situation backed up by a reliable primary source. I have also provided numerous secondary sources which support the primary source. Histrange (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Second statement by moderatorThe main issue that has been identified has to do with Karam's state of mind in terms of believing that David Bain is innocent of the murder of the five family members. There appears to be agreement on the undisputed facts and disputed facts in the case, that five members of the family were murdered, that David Bain was convicted and imprisoned, that David Bain claims innocence, and that Karam has written and argued in support of David's case. The only real question has to do with language as to Karam's state of mind. Is that correct? If so, it seems to me that the neutral point of view is to say nothing about state of mind and to let the undisputed facts and dispute over facts speak for themselves. If the book states that David Bain is innocent, isn't that sufficient without saying what Karam thinks and when? Can anyone propose a reason why it is important to introduce speculative state of mind material? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC) Second statements by editorsMelcous writes: “The lead is meant to be a basic summary of the contents of the article, which in this case is the facts of the case.” If you read the lead more closely, you will see that the third paragraph talks about the ‘speculation’ which had surrounded this case and the ‘controversial circumstances’ surrounding the decision not to grant compensation - based on Judge Ian Callinan’s perception of David's ‘innocence’. The entire case against David Bain was based on circumstantial evidence and there is very little evidence or 'facts'which have not been disputed vigorously in the media for 20 years. There have also been endless disputes on the Talk page of this article over the minutiae of those alleged ‘facts’. If we followed Melcous’ suggestion and took out everything that involved ‘speculation or implication’, this article would be extremely short. However, there is absolutely no dispute over Karam’s state of mind in New Zealand (except on wikipedia). It is a well known fact that he believes David Bain to be innocent. He has argued this for 20 years and reliable sources have been provided in this discussion to validate this point. This is one of the five pillars on which Wikipedia is based: All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Robert McClenon asks: If the book states that David Bain is innocent, isn't that sufficient without saying what Karam thinks and when? Perhaps it would be - if the book was mentioned in the article - but it’s not. If we wish to adhere to Wikipedia policy, surely the question we should be discussing is whether or not the book is a reliable source. Once that's decided, we can discuss where the 'innocent' comments should go. Melcous says "it should be in the body, not the lead." That's fine with me - so perhaps we have agreement. Histrange (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Third statement by moderatorI forgot to state one of the usual rules. That is: Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. We already know that has not worked. Address your comments only to the moderator and the community. Now, again, is there agreement on what I stated are the facts and the disputed facts of the case? Is there any specific reason why it is necessary to get into Karam's state of mind? Is there any reason why Karam's state of mind cannot be omitted, and why we cannot let the readers infer Karam's state of mind from his writing? One editor referred to a Wikipedia pillar. What pillar requires us to get into an author's state of mind? Also, stop commenting on contributors and comment only on content. Can we leave Karam's state of mind out and let the facts and disputed facts speak for themselves? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Third statements by editorsIn this case the 'state of mind' of the key players are all reported as 'facts'. The first jury in the case came to the conclusion ('state of mind') that David Bain was guilty. The 'fact' that the jurors found him guilty was based on an assessment (using their minds) of the limited evidence available to them at the time. The Court of Appeal, with the same limited evidence, came to the same state of mind. However in 2007 after Joe Karam got involved, the Privy Council in London came to an entirely different conclusion (state of mind) - they found there had been a miscarriage of justice. This 'state of mind' was confirmed at the retrial, when the second jury found David Bain to be not guilty. The first judge (Ian Binnie) asked by the NZ government to consider compensation for David Bain came to the 'state of mind' that David was innocent beyond reasonable doubt and therefore deserving of compensation. The government didn't like that opinion (state of mind) and shopped around for a second judge (Ian Callinan). Callinan produced a report which supported the state of mind of the government, i.e. that David Bain should not receive compensation. In other words, this entire article is based on the different states of mind of the various people involved. Joe Karam was more involved than any of the jury members or any of the judges. His support for David Bain lasted for 20 years. He wrote four books on the case providing ample evidence that his opinion, conclusion or state of mind was that David Bain was innocent. The article notes that without Joe Karam's support, there would never have been a retrial. Karam's state of mind, and his drive, was therefore more important to the case than the opinions of everybody else involved. Because of his close involvement and major influence on the outcome, Karam's books are a reliable primary source on the case. Reliable sources are the Wikipedia pillar that allow us to report the state of mind of the two juries, the Court of Appeal, the Privy Council, and the two judges who were asked to consider whether or not David Bain should receive compensation. The same reliable sources allow us to demonstrate Joe Karam's 'state of mind' which had such a big impact on this case. This Wikipedia pillar is all about neutrality. WP:5P says: "We strive for articles that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone." If the article contains information about the state of mind of everyone involved in the case except Joe Karam, the key player, it is no longer giving due weight to a major point of view (state of mind). Histrange (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
|
Talk:Sciences Po#Full_protection
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Pending in another forum. There has been a long-running issue about this article at WP:ANI. DRN cannot consider a case that is also pending in another content forum or in a conduct forum. While it is better to try to resolve a dispute as a content dispute, the editors have the choice of using a conduct forum or a content forum, but not both. If there is no activity at WP:ANI and that case is archived and the editors are willing to focus on resolving this as a content issue, they can refile here, notifying all of the editors, including unregistered editors. We cannot accept a case that is also pending in a conduct forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
User talk:Fixuture#Kiwix is open source
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closing. There was no discussion on an article talk page. There was minimal discussion on a user talk page prior to opening this request. Editors are advised to discuss any issue on an article talk page, such as Talk:List of Wikipedia mobile applications. If talk page discussion is inconclusive, another request can be made here for dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Finding Prince Charming#Stop using ",000" for ratings
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as inactive. The filing unregistered editor has not edited in about 48 hours, and has not notified the third editor who has discussed. The editors are advised to see the manual of style on numbers, although it doesn't appear to address the specific question. The editors are also advised to resume discussion on the article talk page. The filing party is advised that creating an account has various advantages. If discussion resumes and is inconclusive, a new request for moderated discussion can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:ReCore
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as no apparent issue. One editor has no issues, and the other editors have not identified any issues. If there are any issues, discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, discussion here can be requested again. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Have been trying to work on an article for Recore. However since I put the article up, User: Cognissonance has not ceased to interject, deleting the entire article, and undoing all of my edits. After the first three deletions, I attempted to revert their undo, engaged in a minor edit war, and was advised by User: 331dot. Hoped to resolve with editor through discussion on their talk page, but editor responded with stuck up movie quotes and self proclamations on how great they are. Most recent engagement asked editor to back down and awaiting reply. You can view the rest of the conversation on User talk:Cognissonance. Have you tried to resolve this previously? talking with editor, attempted to improve article to fit their opinion to no avail. How do you think we can help? If other editor can be advised to either steer clear of me, or perhaps to improve their communications without arrogance and self superiority,than that would be great. I see no reason a five-year vet should be worrying over a plot summary under construction on a page marked as low relevance. It is ridiculous. Summary of dispute by CognissonancePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
What we've got here is failure to have a sense of humor. Snark is the soul of wit, and I find you offensive for finding me offensive. Where should I post to resolve that dispute? I told you, this would eventually resolve itself. Did you learn nothing from Jeff Goldblum? The plot section is dank. There's nothing left for Arcmind to be triggered about. Cognissonance (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by FerretPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Finding this as a result of just keeping an eye on the article. It doesn't appear any of the other parties were notified. The dispute overview has a lot of hyperbole and misrepresentation, such as claiming Cognissonance has deleted the entire article, while at most, she reverted Arcmind's plot additions. It also neglects to mention that 331dot also reverted him. I myself notified both editors of 3RR during the original reverts on September 12th, which I believe neither violated. Arcmind has made many claims of ownership over the article while discussing, as well as declarations that they would continue to edit war (See here). While I can't condone how Cognissonance has responded at times with snark and offensive edit notes, it should be clear for the article history that Glitchgirl has made very hefty improvements and expansions on the article, both before and after Arcmind made his first plot addition. Arcmind has repeatedly accused her of doing nothing to improve the article in his responses and to leave the article to him as someone who wants to improve things, which is simply not whats happening. Ultimately, I'm not really seeing a content issue here. What does Arcmind want changed in the article? The article now has a fairly complete and accurate plot section now. When this originally started, the game hadn't been released yet, and Arcmind's additions were reverted as being too close of a paraphase to official promotional content. The game has since being released, and so the primary source is available to back the plot section and fill in the details. Arcmind's last two contributions to the article were this plot addition, and the addition of a synopsis. I myself did some reworking on the plot later and merged the synopsis into the plot section, but the content is essentially still in the article. -- ferret (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 331dotPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I only found out about this discussion upon reading Arcmind's user talk page where they said they started one(but I wouldn't call it a notification). I became involved upon observing the edit dispute regarding the plot summary. It seemed to be too well lifted from the game's website to be useful(the text was simply rearranged/few words removed) and since it was a day or two before the game's release and Arcmind said the summary didn't add much to the article I encouraged them to wait until the release of the game(and playing it) before attempting to write the summary. They agreed. I have encouraged Arcmind to stay cool and discuss any concerns- and while they have commented on the talk page, they have stated things like "don't touch my articles" and stating there will be "a lot of edit wars"(same post). This isn't to say that Cognissonance is completely innocent, personally attacking Arcmind [46] on at least one occasion. That's all I can say right now, if there are any questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Talk:ReCore discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
May I? There is no doubt that the early efforts by the editor were way too close to the source. There is also no doubt that ArcMind should have sought the talk page earlier, and should have refrained from personal attacks and sarcasm. By the same token, Cognissonance's responses and comments are snarky and offensive; in this edit, the edit summary is offensive and the revert of the content unwarranted (I see no copyvio, and note Cognissonance made the same revert a little later). If I were wearing my admin hat I would be sorely tempted to block them both of incivility. But since we are here to resolve the dispute, I suggest that a. both refrain from personal attacks and snark (this isn't the internet, where anything goes); b. both take a step back from the article or at least from the summary; c. GlitchGirl, being the more experienced editor here, consider taking a different approach to a new editor who may not be as well versed in policy as they are. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay. If the other editor would please stop deleting my work in progress, and give me some pointers as to what they are trying to achieve, it would be easier for me to comply, and cause less frustration. I would greatly appreciate their cooperation, but so far, when I asked on their talk page, received a stuck up remark? Is that how things are supposed to work?
That was me. My Pc accidentally logged out before I filed the case. As for the discussion, it is futile. I have already made two polite attempts to reach the other editor in a civil manner. After being treated starkly and rather rudely, I lost some of my cool and became slightly uncivil. I admit to that. However, we are focusing on language rather than the actions that provoked it. I have agreed to maintain a level of civility and level-headedness to reach a peaceful end. All that the other editor had to do was to communicate with me as to what they were trying to accomplish. The whole reason for this was because the editor did not say anything. From my end, it appears as someone picking a fight. All I needed from them was for them to state that it was too similar, and that I had to change it. From there, I would have notified them that I as still making revisions, and that would have been that. Simple and easy. Now, the other editor has seemingly backed off, so there is no need for further action apart from the fact that they should remember too explain their reason backed by wiki policy, not movie quotes. That's all I am saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcmind (talk • contribs) 11:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
23:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
First statement by moderatorI am opening the discussion of this article for moderated discussion. Here are a few ground rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and is especially important in dispute resolution. Overly lengthy statements do not clarify issues. The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article, not to complain about other editors. Uncivil comments or comments about the behavior of editors may be hatted. I expect every editor to check on this page at least every 48 hours and to respond to questions at least every 48 hours. Do not edit the article while this discussion is in progress. It would be better not to discuss the article on its talk page, because discussion should, for now, be here, and comments on the article talk page or on user talk pages may be ignored. Now: Will each editor please state, in no more than two paragraphs, what they think the issues are (without naming names of other editors)? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC) First statements by editorsFrom my view point, there are no current issues with the article. This dispute began over a plot section that was reverted as being too close to the source content, before the game was released. Prior to that time, there was no plot in the article. After the game was released, which was a day or two later, the article saw heavy expansion including a new and fairly complete plot section, which multiple editors worked on. I personally do not plan to make further edits to the article, and have no real interest in it. I simply had it on my watchlist due to some prior vandalism (Unrelated to any editors named here) that I was monitoring for recurrence. -- ferret (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
|