Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 21 - Wikipedia
4 people in discussion
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I added this, it was removed. I want to put it back. Users involved
The content was reverted out and in the ensuing discussion on the talk page it has been claimed the text has NPOV problems. I do not see any. An RFC was tried but no interest has been shown. I posted on the NPOV board and agin, no interest has been shown. So I guess I have to ry here now.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Talk page, RFC posted on NPOV board.
Some extra input is needed. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Inter-Services Intelligence discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. It will be extremely hard for us to offer any opinions, as the section you have referred to are referenced to books. Are you able to link to online versions of these books, alternatively scan the relevant pages and send them to my email address? cro0016 gmail.com. Thanks, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 00:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Darkness Shines, I've taken a look at the history of the article in question, and I'm somewhat confused. Do you think you could give me links to specific diffs so I can establish a bit more context here? Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Clerk Comment: I'm closing this discussion now, as it seems to have become stale (and, looking at the edit history of the article in question, the conflicting editor seems to have dropped the issue for now). Please create a new thread (or note me on my talk page) if you would like this discussion reopened. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC) References
|
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Right. So the Neoclassicism article's a bit of a mess. I go in and make some bold edits, and fair enough, some of them get revert. I provided explanations for those edits (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neoclassicism). Apparently these explanations were insufficient. (In fact, given that it was the removal of generally unsourced and unreliable information, I feel they were sufficient.) However, there's one thing that really concerns me: in the second para, the final sentence has a cite. That cite is (a) unreliable and (b) does not back up the claim made in the article (for details, see my edit on the talk page). Now, at this point I can't go and edit the article: 3RR etc. However I do not feel comfortable leaving such a glaring error, so I have come here. Users involved
I have informed all but Modernist, who is unreachable. (uneditable talk page, no email possible.)
Resolving the dispute
I have discussed this issue on the talk page extensively.
By providing a third party who can actually read the source given and verify it is (a) unreliable and (b) doesn't back the claim made. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Neoclassicism discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I really am pretty committed to resolving the particular issue mentioned above here; the other issues I can take or leave, but the use of a source which doesn't say what is claimed is clearly very problematic. And I (obviously) disagree on interpretation of burden; libellous doesn't matter, the burden is on the editor adding or reverting, and alternate sources are not needful if there's no sources to begin with. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC) I should add there was no indication that other editors wished to find sources, or actually wanted to defend the claims made. If there had been, I would have been perfectly happy to hold off until someone could get a book and check things, or alternately I'd've been more than happy to look stuff up. The only reason given was that I had insufficient reasons, which was (a) false, and (b) contrary to the spirit of burden. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC) I reverted one edit, as the IP's other edits had also been reverted. The IP has clearly ignored the discussion and continued to make controversial edits, and has also been making personal attacks and been incivil in general. [11], [12]. Suggest a "cool down" block. As for the content part, I have no idea about what is correct and incorrect. PaoloNapolitano 16:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Oh for heaven's sake. You'll note that I haven't edited the article since, have no intention of editing the article without consensus, and that I have in fact specifically noted that I erred in making at least one edit. Further, I have in fact resolved at least two long standing issues with the article on the Death of Marat, especially given I responded constructively to Modernists' desire for better references. I have specifically brought a dispute on content to this resolution page, in the hopes that the dispute can be resolved, given that clearly nothing useful was going to happen based on the Talk page. A cool-down block would be unreasonable and I think violates good faith in the circumstances, given I have attempted, not always successful, to work within the system to resolve the issue. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Modernists rollbacks were out of line for a rollbacker, and arguably he violated 3RR as well. See the page history. These were not vandalism rollbacks. Finally, the part that was removed is actually unsourced. The IP is right, he just went about it in the worst possible way (Edit summary "Look, please, for the love of god, quit being a baby. please give reasoned, detailed, explanations why those edits should be reverted, and don't just say `reputable sources'" Seriously?). Until the conduct matters are resolved, there's no hope in solving the content dispute. The only compromise I can see right now is to let the unsourced bit go, and keep the sourced bit in. An IP editing does not give you license to rollback their contributions if they're trying in good faith to improve the article. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Attempt to suggest that Mr. Heyerdahl may have supported national socialism by using a citation from a book by Ragnar Kavm. The quote is rhetorical, and scathing in its inference. It has no basic elements of a neutral point of view and starts with the qualifier " Kavm (historian) has been criticized Heyerdahl for his 'lack objection to...' ". That alone is dubious, then goes on from there. Users involved
please read entire discussion
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
I have called for an agreement to resolve in my last post (top)
Direct me to ways to resolve this so the article can reflect a fair criticism or remove heading completely. DixieDear (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Thor Heyerdahl discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
User adding unencylopedic material about a private company trying to use the same name as the subject of the article, reverting removal of the same. Seems to be violation of NPOV, COI issues (the user in question seems to be the owner of the company), non-notable, unsourced, COI aside a possible violation of BLP. Have a look at some of the content added. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Previous users have tried to moderate the unencylopedic content and unsourced/POV statements made by 86.10.11.16 by raising issues on the talkpage but with no discernible effect. I've removed the disputed content this morning with an explanation in the edit summary, which was promptly reverted by 86.10.11.16; I've now left a full explanation on the talkpage asking them to comment.
Some guidance would be good. It's possible I've misunderstood all these policies and guidelines. Failing that, I don't know how to stop an IP user consistently adding poor-quality unsourced content to the same article, but maybe you know some steps to help achieve this. Fosse8 (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Welsh Development Agency discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
An editor is persistent on adding 'present' to the dates in the infobox for people who are currently part of the show. Whilst, on numerous occasions, I've told him to refer to the talk page to reach a consensus, he seems intent on forcing his idea, commenting once on the talk page and supposedly that's allowed him to put his 'present' idea forward. Furthermore, I've been told plenty of times that apparently his format is the one to follow, and that each page should have present because he believes that's right, I particularly don't think this is fair considering the format of not using present in the infobox has been used for ages, but this person seems to believe otherwise, and is committed not to reaching some sort of mutual agreement with other editors. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I've tried to tell him to stop, starting numerous talk pages on the issue but apparently one talk page on American Idol is enough to force changes on EVERY other talent show page. Pretty sure Wikipedia has something that says every page is different, well this person believes otherwise.
I want him to stop and for the infobox to be left how it was; without the use of present: it's not required, and there is no format that says it MUST be used. Each page has worked without the present for a long time, and there is no significant support for it to be added to the infobox, it just makes things look out-of-place and in a few instances, pushes things onto 2 lines and looks out-of-line. JackJackUK (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Infobox dispute discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Clerk Comment: I don't typically like being the first one to comment on a dispute like this, but this has already gotten WAY out of hand. JackJack, I hate to have to say it, but right now it looks like the main one who is trying to "force" an opinion is you. I've looked at the histories and talk pages, and the edit summaries of everyone involved are unacceptable. Edit summaries should address edits, not editors, and they should be cool and collected (e.g. no calling other editors "pathetic"). This has spiralled into edit wars on numerous pages, and it needs to stop now. What that means is that nobody should change the infoboxes again until this is resolved. Howabout90 and MegastarLV, the short "discussion" that occurred on one talk page was terse and roughly equivalent to a "sit down and shut up" session telling JackJack to essentially "let the adults handle it." This is not how Wikipedia works. It is now time for everyone involved to cool off and assume good faith. Just because something has been done one way doesn't mean it should always be done that way. Remember that consensus can change. That being said, my first course of action in cases like these is to consult WP's manual of style to see if it contains anything relevant. Looking at the MOS's section on date ranges, there isn't anything that specifically addresses this issue, but looking at the first entry (about individuals still living), that seems to apply somewhat. It discourages using open-ended date ranges, but it gives the alternative option of giving only the start date. For "America's Got Talent," for instance, instead of saying "Nick Cannon (2009-present)", we could simply say "Nick Cannon (since 2009)". To the involved editors, if you dislike the above idea, suggest alternatives. Two options I do not want to hear: "Just leave it like it is" and "Use just the dash and leave the end date blank." At the moment, for the purposes of this discussion, neither of those options is acceptable. Remember, while we are here we are going to discuss edits, not editors. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| Closing as premature. The guidelines of this noticeboard require discussion on the article talk page before listing here. Also, not really a request for dispute resolution so much as an request for editing assistance; please try Editor assistance for that. Listing editor must be praised, however, for seeking neutral input when he/she has an admitted conflict of interest. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
User 69.172.149.94 has incorrectly added flavors such as "aspertame orangeade," "artificial strawberry melon," and "artificial fruit punch." The editor also calls Brisk 100% artificial. Though Brisk does contain some artificial ingredients, it also contains natural flavors. Furthermore, the editor added the line "The two were featured in a highly pathetic television advertisement," which does not maintain a neutral point of view. I work for PepsiCo, so I do not want to make the changes myself. However, I would like the information on the page to be factual. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I left notes on the Lipton Brisk talk page and on user 69.172.149.94 talk page. However, I have not heard back on either.
I would like a third party to correct the errors regarding artificial ingredients and flavors, and to remove the biased opinion that the advertisement is "pathetic." Scd269 (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Lipton Brisk discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Users Binksternet and Roscelese continue to abuse the 1RR policy that has been imposed on all abortion related articles to ensure that the only sources used to create articles are those of their choosing and if there is an ongoing debate about said sources to remove any tags on the article that may reference the said debate. This is a problem on all abortion related articles, usually focused on pro-life groups and organizations but most recently on the Pro-life feminism article. They use their shared political views to simply revert twice what any other editor can only revert once per 24 hours and remove any reference to an ongoing debate that might attract other editors. I have not the slightest idea on how to combat such activity. Users involved
There are other editors involved but are more often than not IP editors who do not know Wikipedia policy enough to do anything about the actions of two experienced editors.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I have participated on lengthy discussions on the talk pages but with no success.
I don't know. Dealing with biased editing comes with the territory of being a Wikipedian but I think the habitual tag removal is what is infuriating. PeRshGo (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Pro-life feminism discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
There are a disparity in the sources regarding the numbers of Pakistani armed forces who surrendered during this brief conflict. They range from 90k to 95k. We have solved this by deciding to cite both high and low end numbers. Another disparity are that some people think this number includes civilians who were also interred. The majority of sources I have looked at (see Here) say that the 90k figure were all troops and do not seem to include civilians. Some sources say 90k troops including 15k civilians I am reading this "including" to mean "as well as, or in addition to" Myself and the other editor are now at an impasse and would like a little input. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Talk page discussion, already linked to above.
Another opinion on the issue might help break the impasse. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
(Comment from uninvolved editor) First of all, I would like to say that you all seem to be doing an outstanding job of discussing this neutrally and have avoided creating a full-blown dispute. I haven't had time to fully research the topic enough to give a third opinion, but what I would like to say is that this issue may be better suited for RFC; it doesn't seem like we have an argument here - merely a research impasse that could benefit from another opinion (exactly what RFC is for). I'll need a little time to look at all the material, but I'll try to weigh in as soon as I'm familiar enough with the issue. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) I'm currently in the process of searching on EBSCOhost and other research databases I have access to through the college (unfortunately, these aren't available on the general web, but most of them have ISBNs, so we can still use most of them). I'm trying to see what figures are quoted by academic sources (most of these articles are scholarly, peer-reviewed periodicals, so they're definitely reliable). I'll admit there's not a whole lot available (I'm an American, and this is not an historical topic that gets much discussion in our colleges), but I'm going to do my best. The State Department had a little bit on it, but nothing involving Okay - I've had a difficult time finding any sources other than the ones that have already been discussed on the talk page. However, based on what I can see, I think this might be a case where both points of view are valid assessments of the sources. The question is how to include this in the lede section. After immersing myself in the issue at hand, I can easily see how this has become a bit sticky. Again, though, I think you are all doing an excellent job of keeping your cool. This is quite a puzzle, especially since there seem to be so few reliable sources related to it (perhaps, to my DRN colleagues - if any of you are from across the pond, you may have an easier time knowing where to look) - and the few sources that are available seem to have conflicting figures. I think the best solution to this may be to include the figures together but mention that there is some question as to the accuracy of such a figure. ("Between 90,000 and 93,000 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces were taken prisoner by the Indian Army. Some sources (insert citations here to avoid weasel words) report that this figure includes up to 15,000 civilians; however, these sources are unclear as to whether that is included in or in addition to the total POWs from the Pakistan military.") I admit, it's not ideal, but based on the sources we have, I'm not sure there is a better option at the moment. Based on what I can see from the sources, I think the civilian total is included in the 90-93k total, but that's obviously not clear-cut, and the point here is to give the most neutral evaluation possible. If anyone has a better suggestion, I'm sure we're all ears. I'll keep looking for additional sources in the meantime, but I honestly don't think I'm going to find any in this ethnocentric American database I'm using. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The view from this side of the fence, (Indian military history) is 90K plus prisoners which excludes civilians which are over and above that. Terms of repatriation of the two were different, if I recall correctly, with civilians ec going home sooner than the Prisoners of War. I did not quite notice this argument as such. Civilians are not considered combatants under Geneva convention and hence treated differently from POWs. Of course, will bneed to locate the refs right to confirm it. AshLin (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: Just a quick note to everyone here: You may not have realized this, but Wikipedia's Prisoner of War article defines a POW as "civilian or combatant". In my view, that seems to suggest that we should define it the same way here. I'd recommend against changing the POW article without first discussing it on that talk page, but I'm just putting it out there for you guys to think about. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Proposal: I have another possible solution. Why don't we avoid using the term "POW" altogether? My suggestion is that we give a range (from the most conservative estimate to the most liberal), and instead of saying "members of the Pakistan Armed Forces," we simply say "Pakistanis". We could then also present the fact that sources disagree on the number of civilians included in that figure. This way, the range that we give can unequivocally include civilians and military but also use all sources accurately. That's not really OR - it's simple math. Does anyone wish to add any comment? Sleddog116 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It is a primary source of sorts. However, the figures are attributed to the ICRC and are in general line with those being produced ie 90 to 93K. Also, the source is much more reliable than books which bandy the figure around and provide no source for the figure. I'm the guy who normally has issues with Top Gun's sources. As long as this source is used for quoting this information only and not for any other reason, I do not think the reliability issue will be challenged by any editor in the context of strength of PsOW and civilian internees. AshLin (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay - this page has been sitting here inactive for the last five days. For a DRN to be successful, everyone must provide input. To all the involved editors, is the above solution proposed by SMS and myself an appropriate resolution? If not, why? If no one comments within the next 48 hours or so, I will close this dispute as resolved and assume that we have accepted the above solution. If you disagree, the onus is on you to say so. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Query - Has an RfC been opened regarding this issue? Broader community input may be a good option for this dispute. Otherwise, maybe the presence of a mediator (with a case filed at the Mediation Cabal would be a good way to move this forward. Thoughts? Lord Roem (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Closing Comment:Thanks for the suggestion, Lord Roem, but I think the discussion is moving forward here rather nicely (albeit somewhat slowly). Of course, I'm just one of the DRN people. The ones involved may feel differently. Given the fact that the article in question seems to have moved on (looking at the history), though, I think it's probably time to close this discussion as resolved. Most of the editors here seem to have accepted at least some version of the above proposals, so I don't think there's any sense in beating a dead horse. If anyone would like this reopened, however, I think it might be better to follow Lord Roem's suggestion and add a request for comment on the article's talk page. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
The article Columbo is overloaded and excessively long. Some of us had agreed to move a couple of sections to do strictly with television data to List of Columbo episodes. There is one editor who will not allow this change to be made. Users involved
My fear is my zealous aims toward this article may have chased away everyone except Rangoon11. I'd like some help and consensus-building; I only want to see this improved as it ought to be.
YES.
Resolving the dispute
Discussion: see talk page of Columbo; Admin intervention: see Columbo-related post to Salvio giuliano; attempted RfC on talk page, which went ignored; attempted major edits to improve the article, which were reverted by Rangoon11 in various acts of edit warring.
I stated above. --Djathinkimacowboy 01:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Columbo, List of Columbo episodes discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Just FYI, I'll wait for the other party to comment on my offer before I open a case page. Lord Roem (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
--Djathinkimacowboy Rangoon11 (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Some users are changing all usage of the words, "Texan" and "Texans" to the archaic words, "Texian" and "Texians" throughout the many articles having to do with Texas History. Various discussions have taken place on some of the articles' Talk Pages, but a consensus is needed, but has not been forthcoming. The wiki article entitled "Texian" begins with the words, "Texian is an archaic demonym which defined a resident" which is accurate. While Texian can be found in some, but hardly most, documents from the Revolution and Republic days. It is virtually out of usage, now, except when quoting period articles which originally made use of the term. Users involved
Yes
Resolving the dispute
There are several discussions on many pages, the one on "Texas Revolution" Talk page is the most thorough which I have seen.
By agreeing with me! That is, that "Texan" is to be used without being reverted by others EXCEPT when quoting from a period document which uses the archaic term. The only current usage of the term "Texian" seems to be limited to Supporters of Houston Dynamo soccer club, and to battle re-enactors. cregil (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC) "Texan" versus "Texian" discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. (Comment from uninvolved editor) - Query - Has any attempt at opening a RfC been attempted? That may be a way to get more commentary from un-involved editors in discussing this dispute. Lord Roem (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
All time:
Before 1846:
Before 1837:
I am not modifying what is written above, because I am instructed not to modify it. However at 21:10, February 25, 2012 I was invited to add to this discussion. I am exercising my right to promptly participate where I was invited. I was invited because somewhere I changed "Texan" to "Texian" in the name of consistency. That is my POV on this issue: Consistency. "Texian" is arguably right in some contexts. I don't want to do the arguing. Have some experts on the period decide, and keep it consistent. Randall Bart Talk 20:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Added important information and need help incorporating it to the article. The information is about credit rating outlooks and watches. The article only mentions credit ratings. Probability of default is also related to the history of outlooks and watches than just by a current rating. User jrspriggs (who has posted anti-american material related to islamic revolution) keeps removing material and citing it as inappropriate. He refuses to compromise by suggesting improvements and instead keeps removing it. Spriggs also added a section to the "Talk" portion of the webpage calling the material inappropriate and suggesting it is spam. Users involved
User jrspriggs could be an extremist
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Undone jrspriggs' removals.
Help me incorporate the information into the article as it is educational and very relevant. HedgeFundTrader (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC) United States debt-ceiling crisis discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. First off, no personal attacks. Calling Jrspriggs an "Islamic extremist", both here and at the talkpage, is a serious lapse of good faith. Comment on the edit, not the editor. Next, discuss this on the talkpage. A thread has been opened there, but less than ten minutes before you opened this DR thread - you need to give Jrspriggs and other editors time to respond. Thirdly, there appears to be no justification for the link being inserted into the article, much less at the very top. It isn't being used as a source to cite any information, and thus appears to be spam. Finally, be aware that abuse of multiple accounts is not permitted. The edit in question appears to have been added under three seperate identities - I will take a look at the contributions of all three to determine whether or not an investigation is necessary. Turns out it wasn't; HedgeFundTrader may have edited whilst not logged in, but the original editor who added the disputed content was almost certainly unrelated. Yunshui 雲水 13:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
On 22 January 2012, I turned the article Major Major Major Major into a redirect, saying in my edit summary, "+ redirection of page not meeting WP:N or WP:V;" diff. Four days later, 192.31.106.34 (talk · contribs) reverted the redirection, saying on the talk page, "Some joker changed this to a redir to Catch-22, citing policy but not going through the correct process of page deletion as he should have. It was exceptionally sloppy work, as it created a number of circular links he didn't bother tracking down and fixing. [...] If you're going to WP:BOLD, do it right. No excuse for laziness." I rebuffed the user's accusations, gave my rationales again, and asked their input on how to proceed. When I received no input after 3.42 weeks, I redirected the page again, pointing to my explanations on the talk page. Nine and a half hours ago, RMc (talk · contribs) undid my redirection with no explanation. On his talk page I asked the user about this edit and his rationale behind it; he or she instead removed my inquiry without comment. I've never encountered a user who simply disregards my inquiries and just flat-out ignores me. I don't want to start an edit war, but I don't know what to do next in this unprecedented situation. Should I disregard this most recent user's actions and take the article through AFD? Should I continue to try and engage them and prevent conflict over further edits or actions? Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Part of my problem is that the editors involved have made it clear they aren't interested in communicating.
What is my next step so as to not aggravate the participants yet still tend to this articular chaff? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Major Major Major Major discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. (Comment from uninvolved editor) Hello Fourthords, and thanks for posting here. This doesn't look like a suitable article to bring to AfD, as your desired result is redirection, not deletion. In this case I'd simply start a merge proposal as per WP:MERGE, and get an admin to close it if that seems necessary. That would seem to be a suitably drama-fee way of finding out whether there is consensus to redirect or not. Does that sound like a good idea to you? Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♫ 04:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor)Depending on the notability of the article, it may require deletion. Ask, "Is this article notable?". On this criterion alone, if yes, it should not even be redirected.Curb Chain (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Along the lines of what Strad was just saying, might this be an appropriate time for a request for comments? Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
A long term edit war situation involving whether an "under discussion" tag should remain in place in the lead section. Users involved
Yes. But they were all notified with broken links from this template-generated message that became obsolete when you retitled the section: – Dicklyon (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Resolving the dispute
There is discussion of a sort at WT:V, however, there is no discussion that can lead to a solution of this content dispute.
Content dispute NewbyG ( talk) 23:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC) At Wikipedia:Verifiability discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. (Comment from uninvolved editor) Question: Hello Newbyguesses! After a quick peek at the talk page of the page in question, it does seem there has been a long-running disagreement about the tag. Have you tried an RfC yet to get broader community imput? Lord Roem (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Hello User:lord Roem. Yes, I think 3 rfc's have been tried. If you were to examine sections suppressed from the talk page, you will see that I tried to initiate a 4th. No user was prepared to take up the discussion. Thank you for your promptitude. I have to go out now, in the RW, cheers, I will return. NewbyG ( talk) 23:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I participated in the big RfC, but I have been uninvolved with this page otherwise. I have scanned the talk page, but I have not had the time to read everything, so forgive me if I suggest something that has already been going on, or if I have got completely the wrong idea. First, I also agree that the edit war over the tag is WP:LAME, but as simply removing the tag has not worked we will have to try something else. I think we need to remove the tag, but to do it in exchange for something, so that everyone can be satisfied that the discussion on the matter has not simply been put on the back burner. Second, the talk page discussion is seriously lacking structure - if we are going to come up with a resolution we will need to be much more efficient than we have been. I have the rough outline of a plan to deal with this, so please hear me out and see what you think. It would be in two stages. Stage one would be a mediation between the current participants on the talk page, where we work together to create two or three drafts of the policy to present to the community in a new RfC. If I were to mediate this, I would request that the participants agree to the removal of the tag as a condition of the mediation. Other mediators may choose to do things differently. Stage two, as you have probably guessed, would be a large-scale RfC where the community could decide on which of the presented drafts they like, if any. If I were the mediator, I would ask that the tag be reinstated for this stage, as it would be a useful advertisement for the RfC. Again, other mediators may decide that something else is appropriate. If we bear in mind the feedback we got from the last RfC, then this process should have a good chance of finding consensus. Even if it doesn't, then it would just be a matter of rinsing and repeating until we get one. If we do it this way, then the entire process shouldn't take more than a couple of months, and I would personally be aiming to get through the mediation phase after two weeks and the RfC phase after the standard 30 days, with no drawn-out debates over closing. I'm sure this plan can be refined, and as I haven't been following the debate closely there are bound to be things that I have missed, so any pointers would be most welcome. I'm looking forward to hearing your responses. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Lord Roem and Mr. S: So you are aware there was/is an essentially resolved although technically open discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review please that appears to have precipitated this filing; as you know, administrative action has its limits in settling any content dispute, since that's not its purpose. I would encourage the parties to work with both of you, either on the tag thing, or even larger picture. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Tryptofish was mentioned, I believe, because of this edit, and it was indeed a long time ago. So what next? I don't know how carefully anyone else has looked into the history of this tag, but I have done my homework. From its initial announcement it was immediately questioned. When another editor pointed out that "disputed" might not be a good way to tag it (and another editor agreed), this was a point apparently not taken many months later. Initially, other editors helped to link it to a discussion that was live, to justify the tag. No ones's touched that discussion since November. Now, the tag is truly just a black mark. North8000's offer to "organize" this nightmare any further... I personally find to be very "out of touch" with the situation. Doc talk 03:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Constructive discussion is continuing right now at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, and North is playing an honorable part in the discussion. However, if a mediator or organizer is to be chosen, I think it should be someone who hasn't been taking part, such as Mr Stradivarius. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Doc, just clarifying, my offer was to organize a way forward on resolving the reason for the tag, not on the discussions about the tag itself. On the former my views have been sort of low key and near the middle; not so on efforts to remove the tag without resolving its reason. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Just a thought here, guys. I've watched the discussion about VNT both here and on the talk page, and although I have a very definite idea on the subject, I prefer to remain uninvolved for the moment. I know this issue will not be this easily settled, but might it be helpful to introduce a somewhat-informal poll and get input from the community? I know RFC has been tried several times, but it might help if we (on the WP:V talk page) introduced a section entitled "Removal of Under Discussion Tag" and have people weigh in with Support and Oppose and so forth. Let the involved editors voice their opinions first, then try to get others in the community to weigh in. Maybe it sounds a little naive on my part, but I think that might be the easiest way to bring a resolution - or, at the very least, move the discussion forward. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
|
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Carlingford Lough uses the Ocean template. The location field is being disputed. Currently the location states "Republic of Ireland - United Kingdom border". The change I would like to make is to change the location to "Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border". This is for 2 reasons - 1) there is a map of Ireland used to point to the location, not a map of UK and Republic of Ireland 2) The article already refers to the location as on the Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border 3) it is more precise. The argument against is that Northern is not considered a country by some users even though the Article refers to Northern Ireland several times and 2) that the current info box does not allow for Northern Ireland in the location field, which isnt true. Users involved
Bjmullan, has been involved on multiple disputes on this page, and received a block for edit warring.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
This is a long running issue it would appear.
I think the dispute needs some rational thought involved Gravyring (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Carlingford Lough - Location field discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I agree with Gravyring's points, and find the opposition to this edit more perplexing by the fact it is adding to the inconsistent manual of style that the opposition of this edit maintains in the article.
Not very consistent. The edit would firstly create balance and consistency, and secondly is only an edit that makes it more precise. The parameter in question doesn't even state "country" in it, it states "location" and if Northern Ireland isn't a location, and if it doesn't share a border with the Republic of Ireland then something is seriously amiss. Mabuska (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC) I have looked at the article lead. From the point of view of an uninvolved reader, the more specific reference to Northern Ireland is helpful in placing Carlingford Lough and is consistent with the map shown. UK is obviously a much more general reference. You could qualify the reference to Northern Ireland if needed and/or wanted and say "the Northern Ireland region of the United Kingdom." Again, the specificity of NI is helpful to the reader and would be better, in my opinion, even with the UK qualifier.Coaster92 (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC) My oppositions to this change is based on the fact that Gravyring wants to removed an article link (Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border) and replace it with simple text. I believe that this article is of benefit to that user and should remain. If we want to consider consistent then we should consider using the two sovereign states in the article rather than a sovereign states and a province of another.Bjmullan (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Terminology is employed which shows a distinct political bias. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
The article refers to POWs at Long Kesh. The inmates in question were all convicted by British courts of criminal activity in furtherance of terrorism. However much some people may wish to have these criminals perceived as political prisoners or prisoners of war, this is simply not factual. CGAppleby (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Suicide methods - Starvation discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
| Closed discussion | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Dispute overview
I've been mulling over what to do about this, and DRN seemed the friendliest choice. The issue here is whether one person can keep a category in an article on the basis "You have not provided any reasons for me to dislike". What happened is that last October Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
discussion on talk page
Can one editor stop the removal of a category/tag in a situation where there are no policy issues mandating it and other editors disagree? Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Maple syrup discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. It might help to have an intuitive comment from someone uninvolved and who will stay uninvolved. This is a featured article, so in my opinion worth getting right and avoiding instability problems. The discussion at Talk:Maple_syrup#Article_feedback_tool is a fair crack at consensus and in most cases would be sufficient to demonstrate that a local consensus has been reached already. To make it exceedingly clear, it would have been nice if it had followed a simple proposal and opinions layout, at a glance one would see where the main body of consensus was. It is unfortunate that there is a spin of community versus WMF (my words, apologies if this is an unhelpful parody). Though I believe the consensus is fairly blooming obvious, if Nikkimaria remains unconvinced and out of respect for their history of good contributions, I see little problem in offering to run a wider RFC on the issue rather than the DRN process. The folks involved so far would probably be better off just stating their opinions once, without feeling the need to continue justifying the AFT - the statements made already and the page linked that explain the tool and its background should be sufficient. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 10:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Clerk's note: The editor listing this dispute, Dougweller, has said that the "issue is more the behaviour of Nikkimaria than anything else." This venue is limited to content, not conduct, disputes except to the extent that such disputes are marginally connected with content disputes. Is there some reason that this case should not be closed and resume at WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI, or WP:ARB? — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC) ((ec))Ouch. Content disputes. I see the point you are making. I'm not sure any of those are actually appropriate as it's a point of principle I'm really arguing about more than behaviour, but I didn't make that clear enough. Which is why I'm not sure any of those are appropriate, but I'll let myself be guided by others. Meanwhile, here's the post that got caught in the edit conflict: Nikkimaria asks me my reasons. Xe's reason given on the talk page when the issue was brought up there was "The addition of that category was an editorial decision". Then we had BRD, then it appears to be editorial discretion, then some complaints about the old tool which IMHO amount to 'I don't like it' and "I see no reason why I or any other editor be restricted from making that determination". There are then a couple of comments by others about the new tool, a comment by me saying I don't think the category should be in the article, N saying there is " certainly no consensus for removing it." although xe was the only editor saying it should not be removed, and a few more comments which didn't get any further - me saying xe is the only editor arguing for the blacklist cat, xe saying that I haven't given any reasons. This hasn't been a discussion about the applicable guidelines or policies, it's been one editor saying they don't like it (and that was about the old tool, not AFT5), others saying that wasn't justification enough. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
@Dougweller (mainly): No, consensus cannot be blocked by one editor merely saying that they do not agree, but Nikkimaria's assertion is more than just that. She has asserted that some of those in opposition to her position are have not given adequate reasons for their position or, indeed, in some cases any reasons at all. Once we assume the good faith of that assertion, it is, on its face, a colorable reason to at least inquire into the question of whether or not consensus has been achieved since the "Determining consensus" section of the consensus policy begins:
(The remaining parts of that section deal with the effect of policy on consensus, the fact that consensus can change, and what happens when a discussion ends in no consensus, not on the question of how consensus is to be determined in the first place.) In accordance with the policy, an uninvolved editor in good standing should examine the existence and quality of the arguments set forth in the current discussion and determine whether or not consensus has, in fact, been or not been reached. If that is what the parties in this dispute want to do, then I can suggest a methodology to do so, but at this point I believe this response answers the question proposed by the listing editor and to do more without the agreement of the parties would be inappropriate. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 17:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Maybe I'm missing something here, but having four editors against including the category (Maxim, Dougweller, Philippe (WMF), and Okeyes (WMF)) and one editor in its favour (Nikkimaria) seems like a consensus to remove it to me. (The rationale here is that "consensus" does not equal "unanimity".) I know that discussions are not a vote, but the "not a vote" argument is strongest when clear guidance can be found for a situation in the policies and guidelines. In this case there don't seem to be any particular policies that affect this situation other than Wikipedia:Consensus, so I would argue that the number of editors in support or opposition should be given greater weight than in situations where there is clear policy guidance. Nikkimaria, if you really want to include the category for this article, perhaps you could consider raising the question in an RfC on the article talk page? Otherwise, it might be best to concede this particular debate. Of course, this issue isn't really just about the maple syrup article, but about whether individual editors can override the article feedback tool. If this is causing problems over multiple articles, then we should have a community discussion about it, to decide whether we should write something about removing the article feedback tool in policy. Alternatively, as the AFT is a foundation initiative, the foundation could simply dictate the policy themselves. At any rate, this should probably discussed, perhaps at village pump (policy). Once we have decided what to do about the larger issue, the situation at maple syrup will undoubtedly sort itself out. Just my two yen, anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
If cregil had made the foregoing statement before becoming involved in the discussion at the article talk page, I would have said that it constituted a "determination ... made by any uninvolved editor in good standing" and would be binding on the disputants as to the issue of whether or not consensus exists, but, alas, by becoming involved at the talk page before coming here, s/he is no longer "uninvolved" and the statement is simply no more than another contributor to the question of consensus. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Dougweller, without any disrespect intended, if there were consensus here, then we wouldn't be on DRN in the first place. Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments, not the quantity. The number of people on one side does not determine the strength of a consensus. That being said, however, Nikkimaria is the dissenting editor, so she needs to support her dissent logically. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
There are a few issues that could use discussion here. First, to clarify Nikkimaria's post above (one does not appreciate being misleadingly quoted out of context!):
Issues that could use discussion would include unilateral disabling of the widget, blanket reverts, and the matter of consensus. The arguments presented for disabling the widget are very broad (e.g. disruptive to readers, the feedback has been net-unhelpful, the finesse of the tool is incompatible with audited content). This justification can apply pretty much to any article, and no valid reason has yet been given as to why Maple syrup and a few others are specifically blacklisted. I am disappointed in Nikkimaria's blanket-reversion approach, because it is akin to an WP:IDONTLIKEIT statement; no reason as to why an edit is problematic is given. Finally, it is not within Wikipedia's consensus system to be blanket-reverting when multiple (uninvolved!) editors have disagreed. In politics, this technique is called a filibuster; on Wikipedia, we call it WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Maxim(talk) 00:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Edit here by blocked user ʇdɯoɹdɥsɐq deleted. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 03:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Closing notes: A determination has now been made by uninvolved editor in good standing ʇdɯoɹdɥsɐq that there is consensus for the position that the Article Feedback Tool blacklist category tag should not be on this article. Pursuant to the "Determining consensus" section of the consensus policy that determination is now binding on all parties to the discussion and the tag may be removed by any editor. Replacing it could be considered to be disruptive editing or evidence of improper ownership. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Reopening notes: As it turns out, User ʇdɯoɹdɥsɐq was under an indefinite block and was thus not in good standing, and so his/her consensus determination was not effective and the case should remain open. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 03:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Someone's going to have to close out this discussion. Since I'm the only regular here that hasn't commented on the discussion as of yet, I think that will fall to me, but I'll take a look at this in the morning, I think. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 09:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Looking over this discussion and the discussion at talk:maple syrup, I believe a consensus exists to remove the AFT blacklist category from the article. An overwhelming majority of editors who have commented have supported removing the category. Although consensus is determined by strength of argument and not simply by vote, I do not believe that any of the arguments that Nikkimaria has advanced are convincing enough to forestall consensus, and I believe that other editors have agreed with me on that. I haven't commented on this discussion previously and I'm not sure I've ever commented on AFT previously, so I should be uninvolved here. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Reclosing notes: For the sake of brevity, let me just say that I repeat everything I said in the closing notes, above, except substituting Kevin (kgorman-ucb) for ʇdɯoɹdɥsɐq. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 02:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
|
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
First of all - a small dispute, between me and Hittit, for the using of some claims of a ridiculous Turkish author - Kemal Karpat, for which I am sure that are the point of view of the Turkish historians and are not supported by any not Turkish sources. As the second basic note for editing says "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources.", this have not received support by the external sources and has to be deleted, thats why I was deleting the Turkish historian's claims and Hittit was backing them. So Hittit, you should provide an author which support the Turkish historian's claims, until you don't they should go from the article. I am personally sure that a non-Turkish source supporting Kemal Karpat do not exist, no matter whether you will search in Google Books or in the Library of Alexandria, his claims do not have in common with reality and are simply not supported by anybody. Only the fact that the so called historian is Turkish makes him biased and should be deleted as not any Bulgarian historians are used, not mentionting what he write, ridiculous inflations, augmentations and etc. I like the current way, external authors are used, Mark Levene, R. J. Crampton, Justin McCarthy and Hupchick, although McCarthy and Hupchick have pro-Turkish bias. Crampton's opinion for example completely differs from those of the Turkish historians. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Give your third party opinion I suggest or with something else you think would be helpful Ceco31 (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Turks in Bulgaria discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
| I see a lot of accusations and reverts to a specific version by a number of editors without discussion in edit summaries or on the talk page. Thus, I am Closing as premature as discussion was not attempted before requesting assistance on this noticeboard.Curb Chain (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Please check the history page of Iron Guard article. It seems they are agents of influence of certain organizations and they are pushing specific points of view. They are not common editors because they are helping and covering each other's actions. I saw other editors are systematically intimidated by user User:Dahn. Please check their conflicts with other editors. Users involved
I do not want to be involved in such dispute.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Too dangerous. They are threatening other editors for their point of view, imposing censorship.
It depends if you want or not a censored encyclopedia. 95.25.247.39 (talk) 13:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Iron Guard discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
This is a very controversial person we are dealing with. His crimes are serious and should not be overlooked. But I have, I think, some legitimate concerns about the neutral point of view of this piece. 1) Money laundering is mentioned in the lead. But there is no mention of money laundering in any of the references and citations. I have tried to remove this but unsuccessfully. And I have asked for citations to be shown but have been ignored. Money laundering is a serious accusation and is libel if it cannot be found in the sources. Please let's remove it if we cannot find it cited. Or find a cite that acutally contains it and then put it in. 2) I am very concerned about having a mug shot in the photo with mug shot captions. Wikipedia is conservative in its usage of mug shots. Otherwise, they would be used for such people as Al Pacino and countless others who have been imprisoned for drugs, crack, prostition, statutory rape etc. Mug shots are not used when there are other salient aspects of the person. An article should not be event driven if there are other salient aspects. I am not in the business of whitewashing criminals. On the contrary. But I do come from the science community (with no connection to Epstein though) and his contributions to the sciences are notable. 3) I wanted to put in a defining line to The Program of Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University. What it is and that it was the first institute or entity that mathematically quantified the kinetics of an in vivo human cancer cell. This was a direct result of Epstein's funding and interest and I think I should be allowed to mention it. Nomoskedacisity has reverted this several times on the grounds of WP: TOPIC, stating that if people want to know what it is, then the Program of Evolutionary Dynamics should have its own wikipedia article. This seems ridiculous to me. He was completely dismissive when I tried to explain my point of view in good faith. Please see his talk page. The Program is not a household name like the Bible or the Eiffel Tower. So it is appropriate to have one defining line after it to benenfit the reader as to its significance and what it accomplished. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
I have posted my concerns on the talk pages of all the users mentioned. But I was either dismissed or ignored.
Please advise Turvill (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Jeffrey Epstein discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
There is disagreement about whether the template should exist at all. Users involved
Yes. Resolving the dispute
Template talk:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism.
I think the dispute needs some rational thought involved. BoDu (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism discussionOh dear, another controversy about Yugoslavia in World War II. Great, just what we needed. Thanks for informing me : anyway, I have not really taken part in the controversy as I have lacked the time to contribute to the english wikipedia lately. Still, I do think there are some POV issues involved in this template, as in many Yugoslav-themed articles. My position in a nutshell is that the template should not exist at all, or rather be replaced by a template which would include everything regarding the Yugoslavia in World War II and not try to push forward any judgement about anybody. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Having extensively read the discussion at hand, and arguments for and against the template, I would like to assist in the resolution of this dispute. Firstly, I wish to address that given that editors in this matter have a horse in this race it is essential that inflammation of the situation be minimised. People feel passionate about things, and when you butt heads with someone with opposing views whether intentionally or unintentionally it is always a distressing issue. The matter of the template appears to have a pre-existing consensus as to it's neccessity, and all elements therein are extensively sourced. I am assuming that the extensive sourcing is in place due to the controversial nature of the issue. Whilst no one wants to hear bad things about their nation or ethnic group, and whilst people have varying views on history based on personal experience, these issues border on original research and emotive elements that cannot be dealt with within Wikipedia. We have guidelines and policies to assist us with these matters, and in situations like this it is probably more prudent to take issues with the policies that allow something you disagree with rather than turning to an article to champion your cause. My grandfather was a Yugoslav partisan, although I know nothing about the matter beyond that, so I shall leave my interaction on this matter purely as commentary rather than determined dispute resolve. To my credit, half of my family were on the allied side, the other half on the axis side, from British naval and air force officers, to a member of the SS, the partisan grandfather, etc, etc. So I swiftly learnt to have no vested interest in those sorts of issues to survive family gatherings; but again I feel that this (whilst not reflected anywhere on Wikipedia and thus is purely me being transperent and open about something personal in my family history that may be held against me by participants in this dispute) may be enough to remove me from the argument. If on these grounds any party would like me to step away from this dispute I am more than willing to do so. We have numerous active volunteers who are here to help you, and as much as I would like to assist I can just as easily ask another volunteer to step up. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
|
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I am just looking a 3rd opinion. There appears to be a needless POV push on this particular page and I would like to see if an Admin can see an overwhelming consensus on this change? Certain users have been pushing the viewpoint that Northern Ireland is not a country and hence does not have an international border with ROI. The term International was removed from text, leaving the border. Either international should be restored to the text or the pipe should be removed. Users involved
The page is largely held back in its content by a number of Irish Nationalist POV pushers, who seem to want to pretend that NI does not exist as a country. Currently there is a discussion on the location field of the infobox which currently pipes to Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border. So there is a contradiction.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Topic discussion with no reasoning to objection.
There are a number of inconsistency's on the page, but POV pushers are prohibiting the addition of accurate edits. 1. The term International was removed without consensus. A revert is necessary. 2. The location field should be changed to Northern Ireland to mirror point 1 and to be consistent with 'basin countries' field and the map of Ireland showing both Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland. Gravyring (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Carlingford Lough - The border discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
the user "Uishaki" is vandalizing the internationally-recognized geographic name of the Persian Gulf. I (user:Kamran the Great) undid a few of their edits and left message on talk page, with references. Their response on my talk page, although civil, is unacceptable and lacks any reliable evidence. Uishaki has then proceeded to make the same change to other pages. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
discussed on talk page.
Asking the other user to stop disruptive and incorrect editing. Kamran the Great (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Persian Gulf Naming Dispute discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Comment by Zero - Although other names exist, the name in English sources for this body of water is overwhelmingly "Persian Gulf" and this has been true for a couple of centuries. We have an article: Persian Gulf naming dispute. The wiki guideline of using common English names doesn't allow any other name in ordinary references. Zerotalk 13:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Clerk Comment: Just a quick reminder to everyone here (I will probably comment more in-depth when I have a little more time) - edit warring (or even stubbornness) is not vandalism. This goes for everyone involved - you may not like the position of the other editors, but the accusations of vandalism need to stop, and they need to stop now, as no vandalism has been committed. Zero: the Wiki guideline is just that: a guideline. Nothing - nothing - on Wikipedia is set in stone. That is the entire purpose of the encyclopedia. That doesn't mean one particular name can or can't be used. We have to address the problems with the way the dispute is framed before we can adequately address the dispute itself. Everyone: There will be no more accusations of vandalism in this thread - from anyone. Any such accusations will be removed or refactored. I (and I believe I speak for everyone who assists here on DRN) take false accusations of vandalism very seriously, and there will be no more on this thread. Having said that, we can now continue the discussion. I will try to give a more in-depth comment on the dispute when I am less busy and have had a little more time to research the situation, but for now, remember that the correct way to resolve a dispute on Wikipedia is by staying cool and addressing edits, not editors. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
|