Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 55
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Charles Jaco
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Dispute resolution case filed on the same day that the filer created an account, with only one article talk page comment and one user talk page comment. Disputes must be discussed extensively on a talk page before resorting to DRN. Guy Macon (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This dispute has been posted within the talk page, but I would like to say due to the history and biased nature of this I should seek further council. Today (11/16/2012) I posted on the article Charles Jaco:
" In an 1991 broadcast covering the Gulf War realeased to the public via the internet Jaco is seen laughing and joking on a fake set supposedly in Saudi Arabia, then we also see that Jaco is practicing for the live airing with background stages cutting in and out. Afterword we see a clip of the actual broadcast live with Jaco and another correspondent supposedly during a missile attack." as well as a external link to the video. But not to long later it was undone and my explination for that was posted on the talk page:
"My article addition of the article was removed and labeld dubious as well as unreferenced when however it had much truth to it as you could see in external links there was a link to the video (perhaps I should have feautured it in references) . Also I never stated that this was actually forged I said "Possibly" so therefore I was not expressing my opinion. If anything I can assume this undo was clearly aimed at just ones illegtimate political and biased opinion to CNN."
I would like a resoulution for this as I belive that this article is being targeted becausse of a majoritys politcal opinion or just common childlishness. Cole132132 Have you tried to resolve this previously? Posting a talk page post (which I dont expect a response on). How do you think we can help? Coming to an agreement of some sort to repost what I've said for widending of public knowlede on the basis of theoretical grounds (even though there is a video). Opening comments by McSlyPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Charles Jaco discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Charminar wikipedia
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Case filed for a page that does not exist and with no disputants listed other than the filer. Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2012 (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 Dear Sir, Please note under the Charminar Wikipedia some admins has added article which is not correct Example:Article Citiation No.11 first paragraph shows wrong information if you see the website source of the news. I removed the information about 10 times but its getting back by admins . So iam requesting you to please sort this issue and add the correct information to the article Thanks, Syed Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have requested admin to please don't remove my edits but they are removing it continuesly. How do you think we can help? As Iam requesting you the page of Charminar wikipedia should show the information only about the charminar but not Bhagyalakshmi temple. And also they have wikipedia page of Bhagyalakshmi temple so let them edit there. Opening comments byPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Charminar wikipedia discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Global warming controversy
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Cole132132 first comment at Talk:Global warming controversy: 23:43, 17 Nov. Cole132132 filing DRN case: 00:55, 18 Nov, less than a day after a previous DRN case he filed was closed due to lack of prior talk page discussion. Closing case and warning user on his talk page. Guy Macon (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Unfortunatley my posts have been reverted several times out of unformal reasons, I would consider this vandalism. However I would like make this a smart and educated resolution. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Trying to discuss on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Coming to an organized consensus. Opening comments by NewsAndEventsGuyPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
In closing, although Cole132132 claims to be new, you know what they say.... A. Ignore the BRD process once, shame on you (but we will teach you) B. Ignore the BRD process twice, shame on your battle ground mentality C. Ignore the BRD process three times, shame on admins for not slapping your wrist after the 2nd time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by VsmithPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Global warming controversy discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
La Luz del Mundo
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Discussion has moved to article talk page. If progress stalls there, a new DRN case may be initiated. --Noleander (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview For the past few weeks, Fordx12 (along with another user who's now gone AWOL) has introduced thousands of bytes to La Luz del Mundo, and I've brought it to his attention that most of this information appears to lean towards the promotional side. Per the request of an outside third opinion, a user (RobertRosen) removed much of that content, which I feel was justified to conform to the non-promotional standards of Wikipedia. However, one admin (Gwickwire) at the request of Fordx12 reverted RobertRosen's revision [1]. From my POV, this revert was unjustified, and hence feel that conforming to the 5 pillars, specifically that pages not be used as promotional platforms, supersede this admin's revert of RobertRosen. In the past I've tried trimming down Fordx12's content to conform to the non-promotional purpose of Wikipedia, but the user filed an Rfc against me here [2] (This information contained in this Rfc might help to better understand the origins of our disputes.) Have you tried to resolve this previously? We've had numerous extensive discussions, some unavoidable edit warring, and inquired 3O How do you think we can help? So the dispute is as follows: Is RobertRosen's trimmed down version better and easier to work with in improving La Luz del Mundo? (this version reduces content that leans towards the promotional side, RobertRosen cites WP:COATRACK). Or is Fordx12 (i.e. Gwickwire's reverted version) the better alternative? (this version includes all of the questionable content as is) Diff: [3] I feel that the full version needs some major reduction, and would like some further insight. Is such elaborate content warranted for such a little known and obscure religious group? (for the record, Dormady and Fortuny are referenced 37 times; do a quick search for "Dormady" and "Fortuny" on La Luz del Mundo; sounds to me like sources are lacking and being used over-exhaustively. I should also mention that Dormady is a PhD dissertation, not an actual book, nor anything commercially published (it's publisher is ProQuest??))
Opening comments by Fordx12Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The 3O request was regarding a dispute about on subsection between Ajaxfiore and RidjalA. RobertRosen proceeded to delete entire sections that were sourced. These sections are similar to that of those found on Jehovah's Witnesses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and others that I use as models. As far is the subject of the article being obscure, I have not heard of that being an issue. Take these two little known groups as an example Iglesia ni Cristo, Two by Twos. I panicked upon seeing the section blanking and RidjalA refering to RobertRosen as an admin here [4] So I contacted one editor, then the teahouse and then asked for admin assitance to see what I should do. This led to me seeking advice on my editing practices as can be seen here [5]. I want to leave past disputes behind. So I have invited outside editors to help vet the article here [6]. I believe that we should have various editors vet and tweek that article, not indiscriminately delete entire sections. I see nothing that is in the LLDM article that isn't in the articles I mentioned here. Are they also promotional? The Iglesia Ni Cristo article has info on its architecture and detailed history/beliefs sections. The Two by Twos are similar. The Witnesses article has a persecution section. All of them have detailed history sections. Witnesses infobox contains Watchtower numbers for its data. Is that promotional? As for my past actions, RidjalA's "trimmings" involved deleting sourced content. There was an issue that started in late September about close paraphrasing issues which were resoled over time (RidjalA did not provide me with problematic sentences and when he did, several were not close paraphrasing). Here is my Teahouse post [7]. I didn't ask the editor to do anything, I asked for advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordx12 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by RobertRosenOBJECTION: Per me, this event is not only about content, but also the conduct of 2 editors and persistent edit-warring, so this may not be the appropriate forum. It is also not a small content dispute, as its half the article and 43,000+ bytes. FACTS: I entered as a neutral editor to offer WP:3O (I never claimed to be an admin). I left a message on page talk asking all combatants to precisely state their lis. I informed the 2 editors (who I thought were warring) on their talk pages. I then learnt of a RFC filed by 1 Fordx12 against the other RidjalA. I read it thoroughly and advised them to bring their dispute back to the article's talk page to resolve with a neutral editor - me. In view of the RFC it was clear I would not be acting as 3O. Fordx12 agreed. I also noted there were SPAs on the page. Sysop John Carter later agreed with me, on the unwarranted RFC & also the serious SPA concerns. 2 editors gave their opinion. I did not need the 3rd's as it was on the RFC page. I made it clear that in view of SPA issues I would WP:BOLDly clean the article. By then I had researched the article subject & talk history thoroughly. I rigorously trimmed the article to half its size by numerous & individual sub-section wise edits along with edit summaries for the major controversies/blankings. Hence to say I removed a very large chunk is false. I buzz-cut the article of much of its WP:SOAP (it is an advertisement for a fringe cult masquerading as an article based on unreliable blogs, EL's, Spanish Language/dubious/SPS and by misquoting primary (though scholarly) sources like Dormady's Ph.d thesis) and I gave the warring editors a cleaner base to rebuild the article. All the 4 editors (including myself) were always talking and baby steps had started to put in non-disruptive tiny sourced edits which WP:BRD needs. The spamming SPA Fordx12 felt pincered, he went to Teahouse & convinced Gwickwire to (exceed Teahouse's advisory mandate and) revert all my individual edits by a single one (saying I had removed well sourced material). Gwickwire admittedly [8] failed to a) comprehend what I had done, or b)investigate the extent of the edit-warring by existing WP:COIed SPAs, c)appreciate that the material I trimmed was i)to enable the page to be rebuilt by warring editors through consensus ii)to remove wholesale puffery/OR/BLP allegations/NPOV etc iii) all editors were already talking extensively. In short Gwickwire reverted hastily and disruptively and has continued to disruptively revert by abandoning all pretensions to neutrality by openly siding with the non-RS promoting [9] editor Fordx12 who systematically [10] coordinated tag-teaming and edit-warring against the other editor (including by filing an unwarranted Rfc to browbeat RidjalA from editing). For comparison, a similar 3O+buzz-cut I did at English Standard Version is doing just fine and 4 editors collaborated to trim it by 70%. [User:RobertRosen|RobertRosen]] (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by GwickwirePlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
A user came to me on WP:TEAHOUSE asking for help on why his content was deleted. I went and looked at it, and an editor had removed a very large chunk, I believe over half of the article, that was sourced well and relevant. I then proceeded to revert, and we all got into a discussion. I suggested this as a way for us to get a next opinion. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by AjaxfioreRidjalA and I had a dispute concerning the controversy section in the article. The last thing we disputed about before RobertRosen intervened was that I had removed some sentences due to copyright violations, but RidjalA refused to rewrite it saying that the source "states it best, and I [RidjalA] cannot do it justice if I were to rewrite it." I then rewrote the section being disputed to conform to the LA Times see [11] [12]. RidjalA also requested a third opinion on a source we had been arguing about, despite the fact that there was already a request for comment on the source. Anyway, RobertRosen came in as a third opinion and told us to bring a request for user comment on RidjalA to the talk page. The rfc was due to concerns of article ownership, personal attacks, etc. I attended to RobertRosen's request hoping that he would do some mediation. After Fordx12 and I had responded to RobertRosen (and before RidjalA had), RobertRosen blatantly accused me of being an SPA and a sockpuppet, and went on to delete over half the article, without prior discussion; also his edit summaries had redlinks. He did nothing to help us and instead launched personal attacks against me, and deleted sourced material without valid reasons. I protested against this, but RidjalA erased my protest claiming I was making personal attacks [13]. I reverted this edit only to be accused of being an SPA duck by RobertRosen, who also told me to swim away. Then RobertRosen's edits were reverted by gwickwire, and that was reverted by RidjalA, then again by gwickwire, then by RobertRosen, then by gwickwire, then by RobertRosen, and finally by me [14]. We have now started working from there and have made some progress[15][16][17][18], although RobertRosen has bombarded the page with tags and questioned the factual accuracy of the article simply because he can't read Spanish, and has continued to make personal attacks against editors. Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC) La Luz del Mundo discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Note: As is made clear on his userpage, gwickwire is not an admin. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I started to go through the various databanks available to me last night and found that there has in fact been rather a lot of material printed about this group, although a lot of it is in Spanish that I can't read. I have started to forward material to my e-mail from these databanks and am looking to forward the material, once collected, to anyone interested. The question about the "promotional" material is a good one, although it would be useful to know who the sources were for that promotional material. At this point, maybe, if some of those involved are interested, it might be best to maybe hold off a bit until I can go through and forward all the databank and maybe other published material I and others can find, and then return to discussion on the article talk page about what to include and how much weight to give it, as well as possibly what material to be added to other articles related to the topic. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The above bullet points are just informal notes to try to understand the history of how this case got to DRN. Feel free to amend as desired (but please add text at the end, don't remove). Within the DRN case, we focus solely on content issues, not behavior issues. Within DRN there is no need to discuss single-purpose account allegations, or bias allegations. All discussions within DRN should focus entirely on sourcing & how it comports with WP policies. I think from this point forward, the DRN case should look at specific sources, identify which meet the WP:Reliable source criteria; and see if the WP:UNDUE policy is being violated by too much "positive" or too much "negative" information. --Noleander (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, moving forward: It looks like there are two key issues:
Could the parties respond (below) to these issues by providing specific examples of what could be improved? Also, feel free to add more issues if you think they are important. --Noleander (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
|
Murder of Shaima Alawadi
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No or insufficient talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard before listing here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The murder (in the article) was made to look like a xenophobic hate crime. However, all the evidence suggests this was just a cover up and the actual murderer was the husband himself who has now been arrested. So this race-baiting comment: "The murder was compared to the shooting of Trayvon Martin that had taken place less than a month earlier. The hoodie that Martin was wearing was said to feed into racial profiling that led an armed civilian to shoot the unarmed teenager; Alawadi's hijab was similarly said to have marked her as Muslim to the person who murdered her.[4]" does not belong in the article. The comparison with Trayvon Martin is ludicrous and inflammatory. It should be removed. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Attempted to reason with her but she will have none of it, and would rather make threats to me on my talk page. How do you think we can help? By having outside users decide for themselves. Opening comments by RoscelesePlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Murder of Shaima Alawadi discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Is Ubuntu Adware?
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Improperly submitted. Other disputants must be properly listed so that they can be notified of the discussion here. It is not incumbent upon DRN volunteers to do that for the requesting party, especially when the list of disputants is numerous. Please feel free to relist properly, if you care to do so. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview All reliable sources I can find describe "adware" along the lines of software that displays advertising, potentially to raise revenue for the organization that produces the software. Judging by editor comment on Talk:Ubuntu (operating system), many editors consider "adware" to be a pejorative term. For this reason, even though Ubuntu displays ads to raise revenue, they will not allow Ubuntu to be described factually as adware -- it is only being allowed in terms of direct quotes of attributed, referenced notable opinion. Editors on Talk:Adware feel that because no reliable sources can be found to show that "adware" is a pejorative term, the entry may not make any factual claim about adware being unwanted or malicious or the term being pejorative. They also feel that for this reason, having "adware" as the article title is correct, because that is the commonly used term for this class as software. I want to link the Ubuntu (operating system) entry with the Adware entry, in the interests of a good encyclopedia. Users reading the Ubuntu entry should be able to click to find out more about that class of software which displays ads in its user interface (for revenue purposes). Linking to a generic advertising entry is a failure to provide the user with the best available contextually linked information. For this to happen, one or both sides need to move on their positions. I am not advocating a particular way for this to take place. This is not a "dispute" in a conventional sense. Opposing positions are being made on separate Talk pages and editors on both pages just seem to want me to go away so they can keep their trenches separate. I'm not attached to a particular resolution (initially I was WP:BOLD by labelling Ubuntu adware, but now I take an agnostic position) except to say that linking to a generic article is a poor outcome for the encyclopedia.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? Ongoing discussion on two talk pages, two RFCs and attempt to raise on two Village Pump sub-pages. How do you think we can help? Input is needed from people who have no emotional investment in the articles, who aren't approaching the problem from the point of view of one of the two pages, and preferably who can see the broader policy implications to either address similar situations that are bound to arise, or point out how existing policy already addresses such situations. Opening comments by many othersPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Is Ubuntu Adware? discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Glossary of equestrian terms
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Resolved. See discussion for details. Guy Macon (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I have been going through articles trying to remove the phrase "term used to describe" whenever I can, as it is typically poor writing. Whenever I do so at horse-related articles, I tend to butt heads with User:Montanabw (this dispute is thus not completely contained there, but it is most salient at this particular article). While there was a back-and-forth of edits between us at glossary of equestrian terms, Montanabw has not fully articulated the problem he has with my edits, simply saying that there was lost "nuance" that I don't understand as someone unfamiliar with horses. I have asked for a point-by-point elaboration of this most recent partial rv at the article and Montanabw has refused, instead choosing to denigrate my efforts as obsessive and arrogant. Keep in mind that this is mostly simple copyediting. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried discussing the matter (the conversation is now deleted) at Montanabw's talk page. We also had a brief exchange at my talk page before he implied that he would provide a point-by-point breakdown of his most recent edits at the article talk page if I started a discussion there. He has so far failed to do so. How do you think we can help? In addition to providing some additional perspectives to the dispute, it would be nice if others could help guide Montanabw from his current approach of mockery and condescension to one of actually discussing the merits of edits. I'm actually disappointed that someone who's been here so long should seemingly have so little clue about negotiation, discussion, and persuasion. Opening comments by MontanabwPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The basic dispute is seen at these two discussions on each of our talk pages [20] and [21]. Aeusoes has NOT "discussed" this issue on the glossary article's talk page; s/he merely summed up his views there, asking others to weigh in, and no one has done so. I did not agree to and will not "provide a point-by-point breakdown" with this editor because s/he tends to twist my words to mean something I did not intend, and behaves as if "negotiation" means I must agree with everything s/he has to say. This user's edits to SOME articles are sometimes helpful, but at the glossary and a couple other places Aeusoes went too far and changed a direct quote [22], altered nuance [23], [24], [25], and once even flipped a phrase to mean the very opposite. (can't find diff now) And yes, I think this user does have an obsession with removing the phrase "term used to describe" from every article in wikipedia, (note contribs) or even just the word "describe". I think this is an irrelevant dispute over style and a complete waste of everyone's time, thus should be declined. Montanabw(talk) 21:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Glossary of equestrian terms discussionHello. 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. I am opening this up for discussion. I always like to start these cases by asking everyone involved to read the Guide for participants at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Aeusoes1's rapid editing of articles to remove a pet peeve phrase is problematic (see WP:MEATBOT). MontanaBMW has already documented examples, such as the unnecessary and confusing removal of a quote of a complete sentence to an awkward partial quote and subtlety alternating the meaning of terms in the glossary. Reviewing their contributions, in Point particle [26] their edit changed meaning (a point particle may have other properties besides mass, such as charge). Rather than a nearly robot like removal of certain phrases, they should slow down and ensure that removal and simplification of words does change meaning. NE Ent 13:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
While you are both free to continue any talk page discussions any way you wish, many editors prefer to put such discussions on hold by simply not responding on the talk pages until the DRN case is closed. This is purely your choice either way. We here at DRN have found that focusing on article content and delaying any discussion of user conduct until later works best. It often turns out that solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. If it doesn't, I will refer you to the right place to address user conduct issues when I close this case. As for "already documented examples", and the link to the talk page discussion, I have read them all but for the purposes of this case I am going to ignore them. You both need to make your argument here. The diffs listed above are: I am going to start with analyzing the second diff listed above because it is shorter. This does not any any way imply that I am favoring one side -- we have to start somewhere. Before we proceed, are you both sure that these are the diffs that best show your positions? You can add a couple more diffs if needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment from uninvolved editor - I'm responding to a request on the DRN talk page for input on this DRN case. I've looked over the diffs listed above, and I think there is a clear distinction to be found in the two contrasting approaches: one approach is more verbose and clumsy, and the other is tighter and more lexicographic. Specifically, glossary entries should avoid the following words or phrases: "describes", "defines" or "used for". Such phrases are redundant since the context is a glossary, and it is understood that the texts are definitions. The diffs also show a dispute on "that" vs "which"; "that" is correct, since it means the characteristic is definitive (vs "which" simply means it is incidental). --Noleander (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Comment from Montanabw (NE: I WISH I had a BMW, lol). I first want to make one thing very clear: I have NO OBJECTION to any good edit that makes something tighter, better-worded, or more accurate. I also avoid the whole "which/that" discussion, if someone wants to fix a misuse, fine with me, go fix it. I do have objections to edits that are so stripped down as to be over-simplistic, remove fluid prose and replace it with a clunky parenthetical, change a nuanced meaning, alter phrasing of a definition that may be a term of art (technical terminology if you will), or where changing a word, even if a grammatically justifiable change, might cause a problem. I do not think I need to point to the many horse-related articles where Aeusoes simply removed "term used to describe" from an article where it did no harm, made other small changes to tighten the prose, and I agreed this was helpful and simply left it be. So to that extent, I acknowledge that many of his/her edits were helpful in many articles. But in a few cases, notably the glossary, and a couple other places, mucking about with definitions often altered them with no understanding of the concept which was being defined. To take an unrelated example, in law, the word "shall" has a specific meaning supported by a great deal of case law, change it to "will" and all of a sudden, you have a whole different situation, even though to the layperson the words may appear synonymous. Here, to "describe" is not the same thing as to "refer" and a few apparently "redundant" phrases may help a reader better understand a definition, may have been part of an official definition, or otherwise are a common enough part of a definition that removing them could venture a bit into WP:SYNTH territory. For the benefit of Guy Macon, here are just a few of my specific examples:
As for the glossary, I think the most relevant diff is this one which reflects the diffs between Aeusoes' last edit and the final edit I made after I had a bit of time to reread the changes and re-reviewed source material. I will address a couple points, but I am not going to deal with the point by point demands of Aeusoes, as I don't think the sky will fall is someone says "describe" or "define" instead of "use' or "refer." I simply think some of this is a mere a style preference, really not worth a whole DRN, certainly not a MOS issue, and I think it is not the end of the world if we sometimes add a few "filler" words to create text that flows instead of a bare-bones approach that chops phrases until muscle is removed along with fat. The two places where I had the greatest concerns were the general replacing of the word "describe" with "refer", such in the conformation explanation, where it did change nuance, and changes to the definition of "bone" The definition of "bone" is a complex one within the horse world, and the citation goes only to one very simplistic definition, the full definition is more complex (ponies, for example, can have good bone with a small leg circumference, measurement alone is not dispositive of strength, ratio is involved, as is, to some degree, internal density). I think what happened is that the definition may have been split into two parts after it was originally written and the current cite added, the Edwards cite in the other part of the definition may need to be added to def one, as it might be what contains the rest of the nuance. But the point is that it is not a real good idea to go mucking around with definitions without both access to source material AND an understanding of what you are talking about. Montanabw(talk) 23:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Proposed CompromiseWP:MEATBOT says "Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they don't sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity". Looking at the editing history for Aeusoes1, I see edits coming at a rapid rate:
Clearly Aeusoes1 is spending a little time on each edit (I have seen other editors who hit 10 or 12 per minute), but not a lot of time; 10 to 30 seconds each. I doubt if that leaves enough time to read the entire paragraph, and it certainly isn't enough time to check a source. So, is Aeusoes1 being sufficiently careful? In the case of this edit, I don't think he was. The fact that it was inside quote marks and followed by a citation should have been a red flag. You really cannot determine that the first part of a quote is "fluff" without checking the source and seeing it in context. On the other hand, it is true that "...term used to describe..." is usually a sign of wordy editing and can be trimmed down, and Aeusoes1 is showing a reasonable amount of care, as evidenced by the fact that his edits vary according to context. I am also guessing that the gaps in the editing history are where he looks at page or two, decides it is OK as is, and moves on. Also, he edits a lot of pages and sees very little opposition to his edits. Overall, he is improving the encyclopedia. We do need editors who make large numbers of small improvements, not just editors who make a few big improvements. Given the above, I would like to propose the following compromise:
I am open to suggested modification of the above compromise proposal, or, if it is acceptable, please indicate that you agree. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Discussion continuedOK, it appears that we are not going to be able to resolve the dispute here. I would like both of you to take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and tell me where you think you are and what the next step should be. Once we agree on where to take this next, I will close this as being a failed attempt at dispute resolution Of course I would love to have someone prove me wrong by either accepting my compromise of proposing another compromise and getting everyone to agree with it. Every time two editors settle a dispute between them an angel gets its wings... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposed SolutionIn my opinion, we have reached an impasse. There are two ways we can go from here, content and conduct. Both are described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I am not going to tell you which is best, but rather ask you to look at the options, discuss them, and try to agree on a path to resolve this. (Flips a coin to decide which to write about first) Content The next step in content dispute resolution is to write up a RfC according to the rules found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. If the RfC shows a strong consensus, one of you will have to accept that consensus. There are three challenges here; The first is to agree on the wording. You need to try to cover present and future content disputes and settle the basic principles, not just cover current edits. The second challenge is to keep it concise (the arguments above on both sides are fine for here, but if we are going to ask uninvolved editors to comment on an RfC we need to make our arguments in far fewer words). The third challenge is deciding where to post it. Conduct The next step in user conduct resolution is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (also see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance). This would address the question of of whether the multiple similar changes over many articles (also known as a "meatbot") are a good idea and what Aeusoes1 should do when his mass edits are reverted by the editors working on a particular page. You can do both, but you pretty much need to decide which to try first. Comments? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
|
Marko Cepenkov
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Failed; other named disputants chose not to participate. I have advised the filer on his talk page regarding the next dispute resolution step. Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Dispute regarding the labeling of a language variety; namely, the Prilep-Bitola dialect which is universally classified as "Macedonian". The subject of the article, however, instead used "Bulgarian" as was common in that period (late 19th century). I am proposing the lead paragraph be amended to better reflect this. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Attempted to engage interested editors in a discussion on the article's talk page which has failed to remain on-topic, and the involved parties are verging on violating Wikipedia standards of civility. How do you think we can help? By assisting to maintain a sense of direction in the discussion (supervision) and by offering a comment or advice. Opening comments by JingibyPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by LaveolPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Marko Cepenkov discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Charminar
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Resolved in favor of inclusion of the material in question. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Please note under the Charminar Wikipedia page some admins has added article which leads to communal voilance in our area so I am requesting you to please remove temple article under the wikipedia page of charminar. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to remove the article but the admin is adding it back . How do you think we can help? As Iam requesting you the page of Charminar wikipedia should show the information only about the charminar not Bhagyalakshmi temple. there is a wikipedia page of Bhagyalakshmi temple so let them edit there.
Opening comments by UtcurschPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
See WP:NOTCENSORED; "leads to communal violence in our area" is not a valid reason for removal of content from a Wikipedia article. On a sidenote, the section in the question was not added by me -- it was inserted by another user. Hoodedemperor's edits have been reverted by multiple users, including Rsrikanth05 and Abhishek191288, for NPOV-related issues. Besides POV, I've also undone his edits because of issues like dubiously-reasoned section blanking and copyright violations ([27][28][29][30]). utcursch | talk 03:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Charminar discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. In light of the contentious history between the two religious sites, a discussion of that history is certainly appropriate in this article. The length and amount of detail of the discussion could be a matter for discussion as a matter of undue weight, but the single brief paragraph currently in the article should not seem to raise any of those issues. The fact that one faction may dislike the other to the point of violence is no reason to exclude the material from Wikipedia, and indeed the fact that there has been such a conflict as to be reported in reliable sources is a reason to include the material in this article. If the listing editor can provide some reasons under Wikipedia principles, policies, or guidelines to exclude the material, then we can discuss it; otherwise the outcome of this request is sufficiently clear under those policies that I or another editor will close this request as "resolved in favor of inclusion of material" 24 hours after the timestamp on this post (unless some other volunteer objects, of course). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Previously the article was too long but now it looks fine Thanks everybody, --Hoodedemperor (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
|
Comparison of HTML5 and Flash
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Conduct dispute, not content dispute; this noticeboard is only for content disputes. Please feel free to refile focusing on content rather than conduct, but discussions of bias and conflict of interest are conduct matters, not content. If you wish to complain about a conduct matter, take it to an administrator, to ANI, or to RFC/U. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview User:Best Dog Ever is biased towards Flash and reverts my neutral edits only to retain the Flash-bias that is present in the comparison article.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussing on talk page of comparison and user talk page How do you think we can help? Inform User:Best Dog Ever to stop adding biased information into the comparison, and to stop reverting the article content simply to preserve his biased information. He frequently reverts valuable additions only to retain some other biased info in the article. See diffs in dispute overview for examples. I'm not the only one to encounter his bias. See the talk page of comparison for more such conflict of interests by Best Dog. Opening comments by Best Dog EverPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Comparison of HTML5 and Flash discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Microsoft Security Essentials
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | This is not a content dispute. DRN is not a place to appeal when you don't like the result of a Featured Article Review. The Guide For Participants at the top of this page clearly explains exactly what DRN is and is not. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Dispute centres on the decision to award the article Microsoft Security Essentials Featured Article status. As I pointed out at FAC this article cannot be considered to be of FA standard since it does not meet the requirements for even Good Article status. At issue is the neutrality of the reception section: sources have been selectively chosen to portray the subject in the most positive light and sources have even be misinterpreted to enhance this perception. As such the article may not be considered fair or balanced and is consequently unworthy of FA status. As a comment at the FAR stated, we don't give FA status only to articles with glowing reviews, however, the evidence presented there blows apart the assertion on the article talk page that the reviews for this product were overwhelmingly positive. As such the article should discuss the criticisms levelled against the product alongside the gushing coverage that has already been selected. I now believe that FA status is an active inhibitor to correcting the imbalances of this article since it represents an "official" mark of approval that is cited in defence of its current form. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Raised initial objection at FAC - overlooked. Discussed on article talk page, concerns were dismissed out of hand without proper consideration and personal attacks made against me. Took to FAR, complaint dismissed by the editors responsible for the original decision on procedural grounds since FAR cannot review recent decisions. How do you think we can help? By providing what was suggested in the first instance at FAC: outside involvement by independent editors. Systemic bias is such that editors are naturally drawn to subjects that they are enthusiastic about and this can result in overly positive coverage. True balance, especially for a supposedly FA article, needs involvement of others with less direct enthusiasm for the product and more for the interests of the project as a whole. Opening comments by Dennis BrownBefore being procedurally closed, several people did comment, including myself, [35] pointing to the flaws in the argument to delist. The rationale to delist [36] was the same given in the original FAC [37], and now this looks like a third bite of the same apple. Quantumsilverfish's complaint wasn't overlooked. On the contrary, it was acknowledged and the central point was politely and effectively refuted in a manner consistent with Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. We are all on the losing side of consensus from time to time. How graciously we accept this defeat defines our character. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Rschen7754To be slightly blunt - what the hell? This seems more of a "sour grapes" request to me and is entirely out of process. The FAR delegates were just doing their job, you appealed, your appeal was turned down, and that was that. Recommend speedy closure of this. --Rschen7754 19:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Codename LisaPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Mark ArstenPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Jasper DengPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by CrispmuncherPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Jesse V.Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Fleet CommandPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by RndomuserPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by 91.125.204.25Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by GrahamColmPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Mark ArstenPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Blue RasberryPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by CloudboundI voted in support of the article at FAC as I liked what I saw at the time. Other than confirming that, I wish to have no further involvement with this case. Cloudbound (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Malleus FatuorumAs Rschen7754 says, this ought to be speedily closed. The recent FAR did not agree with the nominators assessment, and he has to live with the fact that he's in a minority of one. Sour grapes indeed. It ought to be obvious as well that DRN has no remit to judge whether or not an article merits FA status, that's for FAC and FAR to decide, and they have. Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Greg HeffleyPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Damaster98Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by NikkimariaPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Dmitrij D. CzarkoffPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by BencherliteThis article will appear on the main page as "Today's Featured Article" on 23rd November - i.e. in just over two days. I'm sure the discussion here won't spill over into any edit warring or disruption on the article itself particularly when it's on show, since (a) the article is currently stable, indicating good behaviour by editors; (b) I'm sure that no-one would think of behaving differently in the next few days, particularly while a discussion is taking place here; and (c) I'm sure that no-one here would need reminding of the possible consequences if they did. BencherliteTalk 20:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC) As for the underlying issue, WP:DRN is not a venue for appeals from decisions (whether to keep or remove FA status) made at WP:FAR. BencherliteTalk 20:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Ryan VeseyWhile a discussion here on the content of the article would be appropriate, a discussion on whether or not the article meets FA status is not. The presentation of this dispute gives me the impression that the filing party is looking for a discussion on the FA status. That is not a content issue so I see no reason to leave this dispute open. Ryan Vesey 20:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by uninvolved BinksternetI have looked at the FAC and the FAR, checking the article for its coverage of poor performance. It looks to me as if Quantumsilverfish is misinformed as to the meaning of FA: it is not about whether the topic is outstanding by itself, it is about whether the article about it is well-written and well-referenced. A mediocre product can certainly have its Wikipedia article be rated at FA level. Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments byPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Microsoft Security Essentials discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Closing: Not a content dispute.Guy Macon (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC) DRN is not an appeal venue after you've been turned down from Featured Article Review. So many different users involved that it is not reasonable to be valid here. Featured Article Delegates (and their director) hold sway over the Featured Article process. If you've been turned down after a reasonable discussion then the only venues that remain open are the Administrator's Noticeboard or the appeal to Jimbo. Hasteur (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC) See additional comments in the discussion for ways to move forward Hasteur (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)}} Closing comments by DRN volunteer: Hasteur is entirely correct. DRN is not a place to appeal when you don't like the result of a Featured Article Review. The Guide For Participants at the top of this page clearly explains exactly what DRN is and is not. Also, when you file a case at DRN, please use a short, descriptive title like "Microsoft Security Essentials", not a monster like "Talk:Microsoft Security Essentials,Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive2, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive1, User talk:Dana boomer". I had to go and edit all the notices to the huge list of allegedly involved users (which, BTW, had one duplicate and one nonexistent user.) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
|
Pussy Riot
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | The consensus is that an acceptable compromise is to use Russian transliterations in the section titles. Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Extensive discussion on Talk Page and numerous reverts and edit wars over the correct translation of the title "Putin Zassal", with "Putin Pissed Himself" and "Putin Chickened Out" being the most popular. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Included more than one translation in the text with sources, but heading of section still continues to be subject of edit wars, mostly by IP's. 3O brought in, he suggested dispute resolution. How do you think we can help? Uninvolved admins, experienced editor, native Russian speakers to discuss and advise future course of action. Opening comments by MaxBrowneThere is always a problem with translating other languages because words often have overtones that are not listed in dictionaries and which are not apparent to non-native speakers. My feeling is that "Putin Pissed Himself" conveys the crudity of the original "Putin Zassal" better than "Putin Chickened Out" while still retaining the sense that he is afraid, but then I'm not a native Russian speaker. I also note that wikipedia is not censored. Other editors feel that only translations directly sourced to English language media should be used. However there is no general agreement in English language media of the correct translation, and arguably there is no one "correct" translation. I favour a translation that conveys both the crudity and the literal meaning of the original, rather than translations printed in English language media, which tend to be censored.MaxBrowne (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by FinalyzerI'm a native Russian speaker. "Putin pissed himself" isn't correct translation for "Путин зассал". The fact that it's more popular (judging google hits) doesn't mean much, it could be due the translation picked by the wikipedia article. "to piss oneself" actually translates to "обоссаться": http://universal_ru_en.academic.ru/1739861/%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F Slang meaning of "обоссаться" would be "to be very scared": http://lingvopro.abbyyonline.com/en/Translate/en-ru/%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F BTW, it's the same as a slang meaning for "piss oneself": http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/piss_oneself Literal translation of "зассать" would be "to piss", or "to wet all over": http://lingvopro.abbyyonline.com/en/Translate/en-ru/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C. Slang meaning would be "to be afraid", fear, "to chicken out". http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C (see translation for "бояться") http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C So, both literal and slang translations of "зассать" to "to piss oneself" aren't correct. "Зассать" can be used as "piss oneself", if used in expressions like "зассать себя". Finalyzer (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Khazar2The good news in this debate is that there appear to be plenty of sources for each translation, so neither appears to me flat-out wrong; I was surprised to see this escalate into an edit war, but I suppose it's an unusually contentious page. FWIW, I prefer the same version as Max, as "Putin Pissed Himself" gives a far greater number of Google hits (159,000 vs. 26,400 for "Chickened out"). It's also the most common title for the video on YouTube by 9 to 1. I don't see any compelling reason why we should use a less common translation here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by JDCMANPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by 76.193.19.**Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by other IP'sPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Pussy Riot discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi. I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I'll be happy to help resolve this issue. I'll wait until all parties have posted opening comments (or until a few days go by) before getting into details. In the meantime, parties should post (in the "opening comments" sections above) quotes from a few reliable sources which buttress their proposed resolution. --Noleander (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
To comment: (MaxBrowne): "To "chicken out" means to lack the courage to do what is necessary or appropriate. In the context of the song, I don't believe this is the correct translation". Right, "to lack the courage to do what is necessary or appropriate" that's exactly what "зассать" means. I strongly disagree with "got scared"(испугался) translation, but "is afraid"(боится) would be OK in the context of the song. Finalyzer (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
|
St James' Church Briercliffe
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. No prior talk page discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Mike Rosoft continues to unedit my edits. I (as vicar) am trying simply to remove the notice that says my church is open on Wendesday afternoons (which it is not); that my parish administrator is not Lynn Rogers (she is not) and finally that the churchmanship of my church is best described as liberal catholic (he mistakenly thinks I am referring to the (Roman) Catholic church which I am not - this is why I wrote catholic with a small c. Churchmanship in the Church of England is varied and includes evangelical, catholic and broad amongst other categories. I cannot understand his motive in constantly changing my edits unless it is his avowed athesim mentioned on his wikipedia page.
Leaving messages on the edit page How do you think we can help? Third party intervention. Opening comments by Mike RosoftMy edit was somewhat misguided; I had reverted the changes because of the introduction of links to non-existent articles like "Liberal/Affirming/Inclusive catholic Churchmanship". Unless there's an objection, I'll change the Churchmanship entry in the infobox from "Central" to "Liberal Anglo-Catholic". (The rest of the changes have already been done, and I am not disputing them.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC) St James' Church Briercliffe discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Mobile device_management
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Dispute about user, not content. DRN is not for conduct disputes. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User Biker Biker, i think he advertises for a company on wiki. I think he has got conflict of interest.
He isn't able to compromise. i´ve tried. he has no argument. Does anyone who is editor for a longer time in Wikipedia is always right? I wrote him: The Resourcelink is a copyright violation. The link is from Notify Corp. and it´s a internal link. Extract from Gartner MDM 2012 Research, G00230508 Gartner wrote: "A leading vendor is not a default choice for all buyers, and clients are warned not to assume that they should buy only from the Leaders quadrant."
How do you think we can help? List all of MDM companies or none. It distorts competition. Opening comments by biker_bikerPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Mobile device_management discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Carson Grant
| The request was malformed and the discussion will not work. This is not the place for accusations about users, and there is no discussion on talk page. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:17, 27 November 2012 (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 The entire page is a glorious triumph of self-promotional blurbs and content obviously authored by the subject, Carson Grant. It is also missing an entry about a lawsuit levied against the subject this morning in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas by a plaintiff with legal counsel. When Anonymous corrected the page by removing self-promotional material, uncited material, and irrelevant material where the subject is boasting, and added the entry about the lawsuit, AlexJFox appeared and reverted the material several times, claiming that Anonymous was biased because the court case will be citable online this week but is not yet as of tonight. Simultaneously, however, AlexJFox refuses to remove clear, overt instances of the subject having authored his own Wikipedia biography page. To Anonymous this looks like cheerleading, and as though AlexJFox in fact has the bias - one in favor of the subject. Anonymous believes that if the lawsuit entry should be removed, then so should the self-promotional, clearly self-authored content - which is most of the Carson Grant bio page. AlexJFox disagrees and insists no changes be made except to the less favorable lawsuit entry. He is basically stating that to add a less than glowing entry of provable data to a Wiki biography page is an act of bias, but his protecting the subject's multiple violations of WP:COI:6 and putting them back when they are correctly reverted as per Wiki Community policy is not bias. Can you guys look into this and see who's right? 74.73.71.13 (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.71.13 (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely. For Wikipedia factuality, it has to be re-added. The lawsuit mentioned was filed this morning in a court of law in Pennsylvania, and will be Googlable, as well as stamped by the court and served to the subject in hours. Being sued is a fact of life for many people. Why is this subject immune to it being reported? To conceal the fact that a subject has been sued does not seem to fit the ethos of Wikipedia. I have no personal bias against the subject, despite what Alex thinks. There was plenty I could say in the entry but did not. I used the words "alleged" and "allegedly" throughout the entry. The page however is riddled with self-promotion authored by the subject, and AlexJFox has not worked to keep the page neutral in that respect, but instead where it concerns less than favorable factuality that conflicts with the subject's (and possibly his) wishes to keep the page a glowing testimony to the subject's personal greatness! That is not how Wikipedia works. Alex seems to have appointed himself the personal guardian of the subject, and is behaving, if I may point out, like the subject's publicist. That is NOT what a Wiki Editor does. I request a new editor be appointed to the page, or that the page be struck. The subject, after all, is not famous. It is odd he has a page implying that he might be - and even odder that any facts that do not follow a perceived line of favorability in the article get struck down, while peacock entries remain boldly in the open, unable to be removed without being swiftly reverted by this Editor. That's my complaint, and that's all it is. Really. 74.73.71.13 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Speculation about what fellow Wikipedians know about the workings of Wikipedia is generally not considered civil around here. I seldom edit anything but have before and have been a Wikipedian a long time, Alex. I would refer you to this paragraph from WP:COI: "Note that you do not control articles and others may delete them, keep them, or add information that would have remained little-known." You're getting pretty upset about this. I would suggest you allow a truly neutral editor to manage the page from now on. It would be good for the page, good for facts, and good for Wikipedia. I am now going to be quiet and allow an Administrator to review everything posted and bring in a consensus decision, if she or he feels it is warranted. Discussing a dispute before an Administrator has opened it officially tends to escalate passions, and you are clearly quite passionate about your views. I on the other hand just want to see the typical Wikipedia balance and neutrality on the page you feel so strongly about. That's all. Good night. 74.73.71.13 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
There. :) Now please allow a volunteer or other Administrator to examine the dispute without either your or my interruption or interference and decide the best course of action for the page. Thanks, and go have a hot bath and some tea. Both soothe frustration and agitated nerves. 74.73.71.13 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
|
Brickfilms LLC
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Resolved through consensus and cooperation. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2012 (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 In 2007, Brickfilms.com was described in mainstream media as the internet's "main hub for Lego filmmaking". Shortly after, the site was purchased by Cynthia Price, and the majority of the site's user base migrated to BricksInMotion.com. Despite several efforts to revive Brickfilms.com, it has seen comparatively little activity since; one source described it as a "desolate wasteland". These facts are not in dispute. However, McGeddon asserts that none of the available sources are sufficient for encyclopedic use, and that it would be better to omit the facts altogether and only describe how the site operated until 2007. Gabbroc asserts that omitting the facts makes the page significantly misleading about the current nature of Brickfilms.com, and that the sources proposed were acceptable under the circumstances in which they were used. The Brickfilms LLC page presently omits any reference to the migration. The two proposed sources are: The Brickfilms Chronicle: A self-published historical document written by a prominent former member of Brickfilms.com, which has been referenced as a primary source in several other accounts of the migration. Presently, the Archive.org server housing it is down. BrickAnimation.com: A news site run by two prominent members of the brickfilming community, David Pagano and David Pickett. David Pagano has been hired by ABC News to demonstrate brickfilming techniques on national television, and has also produced animations for The LEGO Group. As with many notable website schisms, no mainstream-media sources are known to exist. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Coincident with discussion on the talk page, I (Gabbroc) proposed a series of compromise wordings, all of which McGeddon reverted. The core sourcing dispute this evolved into is described above. How do you think we can help? Either BrickAnimation.com or The Brickfilms Chronicle should be allowed as sources on this topic, or another way of sourcing the migration should be proposed and accepted by both parties. Opening comments by Gabbroc1. Why mentioning the migration is important Presenting a misleading impression of the topic clearly runs counter to Wikipedia's policies and goals. At present, the Brickfilms LLC page presents a misleading impression of the nature of Brickfilms.com; the average reader is likely to assume that Brickfilms.com remains "the internet's main hub for Lego filmmaking". However, this is not the case. That the current state of the article may be misleading to lay readers is virtually indisputable. Coverage of the migration - at least in passing - is critical to understanding the nature of Brickfilms.com. It makes no sense to give a blow-by-blow account of the site's history, as the current version does, and then abruptly leave out what is arguably the most significant event in the timeline. 2. Why the source(s) should be accepted BrickAnimation.com is as close to an "established expert" source as one is going to get on this topic; as mentioned above, co-founder David Pagano has been recognized multiple times by mainstream media for his brickfilming-related credentials. This sort of source is routinely accepted when reporting on the internal politics of major websites - see the article on 4chan, for example. This is something akin to if (hypothetically) Slashdot shut down in 2007 and has been a static mirror page ever since, but Wikipedia refuses to mention this fact because the only sources referring to it are independent (albeit respected) tech blogs - thus leaving readers with the mistaken impression that Slashdot is still a major source for technology news. In this context, the sources proposed are entirely appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabbroc (talk • contribs) 04:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by McGeddonThe current article says that brickfilms.com was considered the "main hub" in 2007. I don't think this implies anything either way about the site's current popularity, particularly in the context of the internet where five years is a very long time. Pagano may be the closest we've got to a recognised expert, but he does not meet the requirements for WP:SPS. We could quote him talking about his own website in an article about his website, but as I understand it policy would not support quoting him in an article about a third-party site, saying "in 2009 most people left this website and now use mine" . If Slashdot shut down in 2007 with no press coverage, Wikipedia would cite their (presumed) farewell announcement. If Slashdot's userbase declined in 2007, with a general feeling among fans that most of the site's users had migrated to Hacker News, Wikipedia would need a reliable source to back that up. --McGeddon (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Brickfilms LLC discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the 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 read the Guide for participants at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC) I am now opening this up for discussion. Rather than rehashing the talk page discussion that did not resolve the problem, I would like you both to examine and discuss a similar case where Wikipedia covered an an online community that pretty much moved elsewhere: Digg and Reddit. If you go to http://xkcd.com/802/ or http://xkcd.com/802_large/ (High marks for being funny and popular. Reliable? Not so much.) and look at the top of Troll Bay (to the right of Twitter and to the left of the Sea of Memes), you can see the Digg users moving to Reddit using lifeboats. So, how does Wikipedia cover the same event? Reddit doesn't mention it at all, but Digg does some interesting things. Take a look. We will wait. (...hums song "Dispute Resolution", sung to the tune of "Kung Fu Fighting"...) Back already? That was quick! OK, see what they did there? They gave the Alexa ranking of Reddit in the second paragraph of the Digg article. Of course that required a reliable secondary source. Is there one for the two sites we are discussing? Allexa, perhaps? Now look at the Criticism section. See how they handled that? Again, if you have reliable secondary sources, you can do much the same. I am going to wait for both of you to weigh in on the above before discussing what to do if you don't have reliable secondary sources or when you disagree about the reliability of the sources, That's important, but I want to get to it a bit later after we examine the case of Digg and Reddit. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
(Smile) OK, getting back to the dispute, let's consider suggestion #1 above: " One possibility is to directly attribute the sources in-text; for example, saying something like 'Notable brickfilmer David Pickett stated that the purchase was highly controversial and prompted most of the site's userbase to migrate to BricksInMotion.com, leaving Brickfilms.com largely abandoned.' This (partially) switches the sourcing question from being 'is this a reliable source of history' to 'is this a reliable source of what Pickett said.' " May I assume that among brickfilmers David Pickett is notable, or do we need to discuss that? If he is, is the above an acceptable partial compromise to all concerned? I am not trying to push either of you either way; I am just looking for areas of agreement. Also, is there anyone else who is notable that we can quote as disagreeing with the statements? As for the original forum posts being deleted, it might be worth a shot seeing if the Wayback Machine has copies. Probably not, but it is probably worth spending a few minutes looking. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
|
Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Two out of the three named parties are blocked (one for a week, the other indefinitely) and there is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation. Please refile if problems continue after those issues are resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2012 (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 Inclusion of a "Criticism" section in the article Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, which I hold is redundant to material already present in the page, poorly sourced, and not following the policy of neutrality. (Similar problems have been pointed out at the deletion debate of Issues In Darusman Report.) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion at a Talk:Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka and User talk:Himesh84. How do you think we can help? An uninvolved, experienced user(s) should assess the article, and determine if and how Himesh84's material should be included. Opening comments by Himesh84Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Thanks Rosoft for get it to here. My objection was about the structure and policies on two identical, competitive reports. LLRC and UNSG's report. This was discussed warning section and UNSG's report section in http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Himesh84&redirect=no According to this discussion only problematic place is not about poorly sourced ( my content based on the source. If not someone can show specifically) but the structure and policies hidden under in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia. He never pointed out this is poorly sourced. But he repeated this has duplicated in the other section. Rosoft's stand was "Why doesn't the article about the United Nations report have a "Criticism" section? Because the report has only been criticized by Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka's response is already covered in the article. Got it? " But my opinion is if someone made criticism it is a criticism. Then you should have a criticism section. Also China , Russia has criticized the panel as stated in rest of the rest of the article(The panel's appointment was welcomed by the United States and EU but criticised by Russia and China). According to his logic criticism of human right groups (LLRC) has to go with responses of human right groups section. But he has created his own version of logic saying LLRC was criticized by more than one human right groups. So it should be in the "critism' section. I don't think he expressed it in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia rather his version of policies My major point is Mike Rosoft keeping his own version of different unfair logic/policies to 'criticism section' for 2 reports(LLRC and UNSG's) and hide them under in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia. I repetitively requested to specify the policy. But he never specified. Also where it currently remains in a page is not important. Wiki pages can be change at anytime and we should place things in the best place. --Himesh84 19:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himesh84 (talk • contribs) Opening comments by JimmyRajapaksha86
Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Visa requirements for United States citizens, List of states with limited recognition
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | As to Visa requirements for United States citizens there is no dispute to be resolved, as there is a clear consensus in favor of the inclusion of the material in question. As to List of states with limited recognition there has been insufficient talk page discussion substantially and specifically about that article, even though the discussion about the visa article is taking place at its talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview For the List of Visa Requirements for U.S. Citizens I have attempted numerous times to remove several unrecognized nations and disputed territories from the list. Five editors who have no knowledge of U.S. Passport law keep reading them and I tried to removed them with no success. The U.S. State Department issues passports and they also state that misuse or a passport whether visiting an unrecognized state or a nation with an active embargo (Cuba, Iran) can result in prosecution for the U.S. passport holder. Fantasy countries such as South Ossetia and Abzhakia have no recognition from the U.S. and that non-recognized states should only be listed in articles related to states that recognize them.For example the Turkis Republic of Northern Cyprus should only be listed in the article for Visa restrictions for Turkish Citizens and vice versa. South Ossetia can be added to Visa Restrictions for Russian, Venezuelan, and Nicaraguan citizens and vice versa. However the State Department requires treasury licenses to travel to enemy states, hence solidifying their ability to determine passport use and misuse. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have provided lengthy explanation on the recognition of sovereign states and provided substantial proof that U.S. passports are not good for travel in disputed territory. Furthermore, I have have asked the disputed material to be removed from the article until all legal recourses on Wikipedia are used. The editors have formed a junta squashing dissident editors. How do you think we can help? Removal of non-recognized states from the U.S. article and a disclaimer that travel to these disputed regions is not permissible per U.S. foreign affairs. It's completely misleading and should be remove immediately! Opening comments by Outback the koalaPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by L.tak
Visa requirements for United States citizens, List of states with limited recognition discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Lihnida
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard before listing here. Please go back to the article talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS. Guy Macon (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This article is about a newly composed song from the Republic of Macedonia, and is adequately sourced. User:Алиса Селезньова believes this song is an old Bulgarian folk song, a claim she hasn't provided a single source for. I also renamed the page to the title under which the song was originally released and is currently marketed; this was reverted by User:Алиса Селезньова without explanation. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Apart from discussing the problem on the article's talk page, I have also engaged the other user in a discussion on her own user talk page. How do you think we can help? By enforcing WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Opening comments by Алиса СелезньоваPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
It is not believed by me - this is the popular point of view in Bulgaria and since there is a dispute about the folklore heritage between Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria, the Bulgarian point of view should be mentioned. Attempts to add the Bulgarian point of view have been reverted - if sources are needed I will provide them when I can, but about missing sources I believe there is a suitable template not immediate revert.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Lihnida discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Amiram Goldblum's disruptive editing
| Not for DRN. ~~Ebe123~~ ? report 23:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Amiram Goldblum's disruptive editingAmiram Goldblum has been engaging in disurptive editing in the ikipedia article about himself. Using the editing pen name Rastiniak, he just violate dthe 3RR rule, once again. He has also repeatedly posted slanderous statements on Wikipedia about other people. He has violated every rule in the editing book and must be blocked from further editing. The 132.64.165.121 IL, which is his own personal IP at the Hebrew University and has also been used for dirsruptive editing, should also be blocked indefinitely . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.193.217 (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Jat people
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature, needs more substantial discussion on talk page. See closing note, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Sitush is abusing his admin powers. Choses to revert w/o any explanation.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? contacted him on his talk page multiple times. Chose to deflect issue. you can see his contributions. most of the time he reverts other people's contributions rather than constructive edits. How do you think we can help? Check the URL's submitted by me and existing ones to decide the 1st line. Opening comments by SitushPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
I'm not an admin. The matter has been under discussion for little more than a day, and I am awaiting responses per my note on at Talk:Jat people#THIS ARTICLE NEEDS TO BE UPDATED.. This request for DR is extremely premature, especially since there are certain to be other people who have not yet commented on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Jat people discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
I have re-opened the discussion as the 2nd party said it was ok. See my talk page. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 23:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Closing note: I, like Ebe123, am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I feel that there has not been sufficient substantial discussion of this matter and, in particular, I feel that Akashasr needs to respond to Sitush's responses made at 13:25 on 2 December 2012 (UTC) here and then see if discussion develops on the talk page before continuing this discussion. I would ordinarily leave this listing open to allow that to occur, but Akashasr is blocked until 00:58 on 6 December and ought to be allowed 2-3 days beyond that to reply there and that's too long to just let this thread sit dormant. Moreover, the issues will probably need to be refined after that discussion has occurred. Either disputant may refile if there is still a need to do so after more talk page discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Ruba'i article
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | This case has gone stale. Participants have stopped posting. This is not resolved or failed, but simply closed as unresolved. If another volunteer should disagree with this assement, please feel free to adjust the closing to suit. Amadscientist (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I edited a statement for accuracy, based on scholarly sources: specifically I stated that in Persian verse the ruba'i was written as a couplet divided into hemistiches. When Justice007 asked asked me and I quote "Which books or scholars say 'rubaí contians only two lines'???" I gave him the following references: "The ruba'i, pronounced rubā'ī, plural rubā'īyāt, is a two-lined stanza of Persian poetry each line of which divided into two hemistiches making four altogether, hence the name ruba'i, an Arabic word meaning 'foursome'" (from Peter Avery's Introduction to 'The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, pg.9)[62] "Leaving legend aside, it is sufficient to note that from an early date the term rubā'i began to be used for a poem having two main characteristics: (1) two verses (bait) or four hemistiches (mișrā'), with a rhyme scheme aaaa or aaba; (2)The metre known in Arabic terminology as hazaj ...." from the article "The Rubā'ī in Early Persian Literature" (written by L. P. Elwell-Sutton, in The Cambridge History of Iran, v. 4, edited by R. N. Frye, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p.634.)[63] Not only did he refuse to read the sources but he insists that they support his point when they don't and (in an obvious show of bad faith) stated the following: "It seems to me a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I am not a person who casts pearls before swine. You read only the books but I have experience of both reading and writing classical and very technical rubaiyaat. I do not need your certificate, mind your own business and happy editing as the wiki rules. Justice007 (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)" Thus admits that he does not have any sources to which contradicts my claim, but (out of arrogance) persists in removing accurate information from the webpage. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have provided the references requested by Justice007, but not only does he persist in ignoring the references but he has brought in other users (specifically Drmies) to intimidate me (even manipulating the page so that Justice007's edits would have to be manually reverted.) I warned Justice007 twice about his vandalism twice and even filed a report -- which the administrator ignored (essentially telling me "its not a good idea to report.") How do you think we can help? This seems like more than a a dispute about content, since accurate information is being willfully kept off the page (despite solid evidence.) Therefore, I think these users should be blocked. Opening comments by Justice007Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by DrmiesPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Ruba'i article discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Welcome to DRN, I'm a volunteer on the noticeboard. Before commenting on the actual dispute, @Writer83175, on Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific definition, and is usually restricted to blatant nonsense like irrelevant obscenities and crude humor. Content disputes are not considered vandalism, as per WP:NOTVAND, which is why the administrator declined the AIV report. Also, please assume good faith of Drmies, whose only involvement in this dispute so far has been a minor copyedit of the article.--xanchester (t) 06:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Drive-by comment - The wording "the quatrain can consist of two couplets or four hemistichs" seems ambiguous to me. The "or" could mean (a) that 2 couplets = 4 hemis" ; or (b) 2 couplets are not the same as 4 hemis, and a Ruba'i could be one or the other. Maybe the wording should be something like: "Ruba'i consist of four lines. The four lines may be regarded as two couplets of two lines each. Each line may be regarded as a hemistich." Or something like that. Non-poetry readers (and I'm one of them) will need it spelled out to them. --Noleander (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
My note
Closing notice: This discussion appears to be stale and the listing editor has not edited Wikipedia in several days after indicating that he no longer intends to edit Wikipedia. I propose to close it as stale/resolved 24 hours after the time stamp on this posting, unless someone wishes to discuss it further. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
|
MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Meta discussions about Wikipedia governance are not appropriate for this page. Please open a discussion at WP:AN to present your appeal of argument. Hasteur (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I've asked that avoiceformen.com be removed from the spam-blacklist. The Houston, TX based site was abused on wikipedia by an Australia based spammer some time ago. I argued that banning such an important website for the improper behavior of an unrelated user is analogous to banning Youtube because of a single channel. Removing the blacklist is important because I've set about documenting the "manosphere" from a neutral POV. For clarity the "manosphere" is a broad focus area, with some communities interested in men's rights, and others interested in Game/seduction and against men's rights activists, it is not a single purpose issue. As the largest men's rights website in the manosphere, avoiceformen.com is indispensable to that documentation effort. The editors declined to remove the blacklist on the basis of wikipedias policies on: External links, Verifiable, Reliable, Notable Sources, and pointed out a possible violation of Biographies of living persons I responded on various talk pages that: Avoiceformen.com has been stated by the Southern_Poverty_Law_Center (and elsewhere) as part of the "manosphere". Wikipedia considers the SPLC a reliable source. The SPLC has described the manosphere as a significant movement. The manosphere is also notable in having been mentioned in mainstream media publications like the Huffington Post, and Business Insider. I argue that whether or not one considers the manosphere to be "fringe" is irrelevant. I've clearly stated I don't intend to represent the manosphere's usage of any existing terms, or understanding of any concept they claim, as valid, or to represent any website's views as being authoritative for all of the manosphere. I intent to represent the manosphere's claims only as their own. Avoiceformen.com is certainly a reliable source for it's own opinions. Since a reliable source says avoiceformen.com is part of the manosphere which is notable, avoiceformen.com is a reliable source for a notable topic. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The matter has been discussed extensively on the talk page. The discussion has been one sided. I have rebutted the arguments given for blacklisting with carefully referenced grounds. The other side has simply exercised their unilateral power to close the discussion with only a superficial consideration, and in some cases no consideration, of my arguments. I'd like assistance in encouraging this matter be resolved appropriately and collaboratively. How do you think we can help? I would like a response to my specific arguments which I believe clearly have merit. I would like some assistance to avoid discussions becoming one-sided and then being closed down in such an authoritarian manner. I would like the interpretation of the wikipedia rules clarified in this case so that the efforts of rule abiding wikipedia editors like myself to create neutral, objective, informative articles will dispel the broad perception in the "manosphere" of wikipedia's censorship. Opening comments by BeetstraPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Hu12Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by A. B.Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Meta discussions about Wikipedia governance are not appropriate for this page. Please open a discussion at WP:AN to present your appeal of argument. Hasteur (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
|