Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 77 - Wikipedia
3 people in discussion
Article ImagesThis 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 70 | ← | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 |
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
It doesn't appear that there is a real dispute here. No one needs to give Drittner a list of the copyright issues, it's already there in the "(Duplicate Detector report)" link in the copyright tag. If the content in question is Drittner's work, Drittner needs to follow Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online to give us permission to use it. (But bear in mind that doing so is pretty much like putting it in the public domain.) Or the owner of that page can put the proper copyright disclaimer on the page (though some may complain that may not be sufficient since Drittner has admitted that not everything there is Cheng's work). As for the rest, since this is a userspace draft there's really no content to be in dispute: so long as you don't violate copyright, the biographies of living persons policy and one or two other legally-related policies, you can put in what you like. Jac is just offering some comments about what Drittner needs to do to get it to survive if and when Drittner moves it into mainspace. Beyond that, this is just a help request and this noticeboard is for disputes, not for editing assistance. For help consider Editor Assistance. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The bot says there is copyrighted info on my article. It is my information which is taken from MY publications. However the bot nor the editor will tell me WHICH part is the problem. Also says it is poorly formatted or documented. I think 28 references if certainly well documented. The editor is threatening and arrogant. He says the piece is promotional which it is not. It is the bio of a living scientist and is a record of his accomplishments along with his life history. There are hundreds of examples on Wiki with the same type of content. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried rewritiing and postiing How do you think we can help? Have a civil editor read it and offer suggestions as to where the problem is and help me correct it. Summary of dispute by Jac16888Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have explained to this user repeatedly that A) Their word is not enough for proof that they own the copyright, B) Even with the copyright the page is overly promotional and C)Barely referenced with the exception of the subjects own work. I have pointed Drittner to a multitude of different pages that can help them, all to no avail, I have run out of ways to try and explain things to this editor and have little interest in continuing to do so--Jac16888 Talk 19:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC) User:Drittner/Roger J._Cheng discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I am in the process of editing a page on wikipedia that I believed to show bias. I engaged on the TALK section of the page and began to address a few issues, doing the best I can to maintain a NPOV and avoid WP NPA. One of the editors there, user Vzaak - apparently guards the page. User was very confrontational. I maintained etiquette and addressed their questions. When I addressed their questions within reason and apparently user had no further comment, user then began to accuse me of personal attacks, of which there were none. User then came to my talk page, discovered my identity and exposed my real name on wikipedia, a violation of WP. I tried to engage with them on their talk page and then I was given a warning on my page that I would be blocked. Keep in mind, I have hardly even begun to edit the page in question yet. This is, I believe, an attempt to bully me away from editing this page and I seek resolution. I am not sure what else to do. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried engaging with the user in our TALK pages and requested in the subject page that we all try to maintain an NPOV and edit without bias as much as possible. How do you think we can help? I need a third opinion here mainly because now I am being threatened from being blocked on the page in question, my identity has been outed, and I am not sure what else I can do but seek a reasonable third party. Summary of dispute by VzaakPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I don't think Tumbleman is serious per here. My responses have been measured and appropriate. Tumbleman continued making accusations against me and other editors despite many repeated requests for him to focus on content, not people. When these requests were rebuffed, I issued warnings on his talk page. The conversation at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake speaks for itself. Absurd, over-the-top silliness, matching his boasting descriptions of his Internet antics. If there is any doubt remaining after looking at that those discussions, please inform me. Otherwise I consider the matter closed. Vzaak (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Response to Summary of dispute re - Vzaak: TumblemanVzaak - an online project I did over 7 8 years ago is entirely irrelevant to my activities, anywhere, now, including wikipedia. Actually using these activities is a WP NPA. Adding my actual identity a clear violation and that is the clear line to draw in the sand for me. Plus this has nothing to do with the issue on the TALK page. The issue on the TALK page is not even an issue, I made my comments as to various reasons for edits you and others were suggesting. I even requested we work this out in our TALK pages. What you are doing here is akin to bullying. To resolve this - i request you immediately edit out my identity on our talk pages. In terms of everything else, we both just have to work on maintaining a NPOV. I think anyone can read the TALK page and determine if what I wrote was a personal attack or rather a response to your questions and my honest concerns of bias.The Tumbleman (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Second response by VzaakAgain, I believe this is an experiment by Tumbleman, "a character who spontaneously ‘shows’ up in a internet community and puts on certain antics" [1]. Among other things, he has claimed that the TED blog is a news organization and a reliable secondary source, and that quoting an author's own words is "horribly biased". It matches the behavior Tumbleman has boasted about on other websites. No personal details have been posted. Tumbleman has called himself Tumbleman, and has identified himself on WP here. He has further identified himself, in a manifestly obvious way, through his creation of a WP article on his own project. I'm not sure how much time I should devote to this DR, since the case is so clear cut. Vzaak (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
TALK: Rupert Sheldrake discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hi; I'm not going to take this discussion on full-time yet. According to what I've just read, it sounds like there is more a dispute over user conduct rather than article content. This theory is supported by the fact that User:Tumbleman doesn't know the policy on Wikipedia:SIGLINK (he splits the comments of another user by his own comments). Is this a good surmise, or do parties wish to present evidence to the contrary? --The Historian (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
|
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- MisterDub (talk · contribs)
- North8000 (talk · contribs)
- dave souza (talk · contribs)
- Guettarda (talk · contribs)
- Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs)
- Cla68 (talk · contribs)
- Andrew Lancaster (talk · contribs)
- Johnuniq (talk · contribs)
- Noformation (talk · contribs)
- Yopienso (talk · contribs)
- BabyJonas (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
User:North8000 wishes to add some information about previous uses of the phrase intelligent design before its adoption by creation scientists. I (and others) feel this information belongs elsewhere, in the Teleological argument.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
This is a recurring discussion on the Talk pages. It gets much attention, the consensus ends up keeping the current page, and discussion dies down until the issue is reopened. No other steps have been taken.
How do you think we can help?
I think this dispute revolves around the common names for these subjects, and it would be nice to have some input on that front. North8000 often characterizes it as a problem of scope (i.e. that the article currently disregards all intelligent design (ID) that is not associated with the Discovery Institute), and we could probably use some expertise in distinguishing ID from the teleological argument (aka argument from design).
Summary of dispute by North8000
This is more complex than described:
- There are three larger interrelated issues ("chicken-and-the-egg" type interrelations) and the described question is merely a proposed edit relating to them it is not the issue.
- There is a larger longer term difference of opinion. The described edit is just a tiny bit of addressing concerns expressed by a large number of editors. Also, as many of those have been "chased away" an RFC with external eyes may be needed. (though the vast majority of the editors there keep it on a high plane and do not do such things which makes this very promising)
Nevertheless I would be happy to participate here. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by dave souza
Since before April 2012, North8000 has been arguing that the scope of the ID article and the term is broader than the modern adaptation of the design argument as promulgated by the Discovery Institute. As an outcome of discussion on his June 2012 proposal for a scope-defining statement which would have widened the scope of the article, trimming of the Origins of the term section was discussed. Following broad agreement that original research and examples unrelated to the current usage should be trimmed, I made edits starting to implement this on 3 July 2012, then following talk page discussion, moved examples to a footnote.[2] Thus examples which are peripheral to modern use of the term are covered in summary style.
North8000 has persisted with discussions trying to widen the scope of the ID article beyond the modern usage of intelligent design, and has repeatedly requested that more prominence should be given in the article to these offtopic examples of what he calls Historic intelligent design material. Despite repeated requests, no new secondary sources have been shown to support these proposed changes. . dave souza, talk 12:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Guettarda
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Dominus Vobisdu
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Cla68
This is a content dispute that probably should be addressed in an RfC as recommended by North8000. North8000 mentions that editors have been "chased away" which is a reference to what I believe is a larger problem with that article. The talk page for the Intelligent Design article is one of the most hostile discussion forums I have ever come across in Wikipedia. I myself have been subjected to personal insults on that article talk page several times in the last few months after posting an opinion. Opinions left by new or IP editors are sometimes removed by other editors, and other editors on that page feel it is ok to revert war on contributions to the article without prior discussion. I believe effective administrator intervention may be necessary. Notice I said "effective". Unfortunately, I don't believe WP's current administration is up to the task. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Andrew Lancaster
Maybe more opinions can help but I note there are already a fairly large number of experienced good faith editors on the article talk page, and the discussion is fairly rational. The basic policies which are relevant are clear, and not really in dispute, and this is as far as I can see a case where careful balancing/judgment is inevitably going to require some discussion. I'd suggest anyone interested should look at the talk page first and consider whether it is better to post directly there (keeping all discussion in one place).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Johnuniq
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Noformation
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Yopienso
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by BabyJonas
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Intelligent design discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
- I'd have to concur with Cla68 here. An RFC I think would be the best way to go - get as many uninvolved people discussing this as possible, and come to a consensus that way. I'd be happy to help set up the RFC. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like this one has gone quiet - I'll close it out in 24 hours if there's nothing else discussed here but an RFC seems the way to go with this one. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 02:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Before closing this, perhaps people would like to take account of what is happening on the Teleological argument page. I see that it is involved in this dispute. In an edit blitz, the term "intelligent design" has been introduced by one editor (appearing above) pretty well everywhere. This seems to be a spill-over from the dispute going on here. I, and another editor, tried to show that the introduction of 'intelligence', in the phrase "argument from design" was a recent thing, while the editor, just referred to, removed my cited quotations, saying they were OR. It sounds very similar to what is going on here. I have asked for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Myrvin (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Steven an RFC must definitely be in the minds of several of us, but I guess a major concern must come from the question of how to define the core of the complex question, and in such a way that it does not become a beauty contest. The concerns leading to proposals for change are still apparently poorly understood by some editors, partly because of the subject matter and partly because it involves areas of WP policy where people often have misunderstandings. And so the concerns tend to become simplified into absolute proposals whereas there must be dozens of ways of alleviating those concerns if editing and discussion were more healthy on that article. => Maybe it is a silly idea, but I was just thinking that a recent event might help: I have broken a recent major revert into 9 separable edits which I think could be considered independently: [3]. At least a few of them are kind of practical digestible versions of some of the core concerns separating the most active discussants. Just wondering if this makes any helpful sense. BTW although Myrvin probably thinks I'm annoying I agree with him fully that there are several articles which are clearly and openly linked back to the controversy on intelligent design.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable concern, Andrew. In the past some mediations have functioned to just help define scope. I might head over to the talk page, do some reading and ponder how we can proceed from here but I'm open to the idea of guiding the discussion if that would be of assistance. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 12:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Closed, IP blocked. If this reoccurs it would be something I would recommend taking to AN/I, as this is a case of incorrect info being inserted. Steve Zhang 12:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Information issues. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page How do you think we can help? Get the real facts from reliable sources. Summary of dispute by 50.105.84.129Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Flyer22Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by FreshhOne user claims that Mr. Wells directed a film called Wendy in Wonderland, which is unsourced if such film existed. Summary of dispute by TrivialistThe user at 50.105.84.129 (and at other IPs) persists in changing An American Tail: Fievel Goes West to Wendy in Wonderland in several articles, most recently Amblin Entertainment, John Cleese, Phil Nibbelink, and Simon Wells. Simon Wells discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview A few editors have popped into the page saying that this person isn't notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia page and that he needs more notability. After providing a large amount of third-party sources as the editor requested, they began making erroneous claims saying that a lot of the content was written by Marcos Avellan himself, which is definitely not true. I've asked many questions pertaining to the requirements of notability and I've not received any clear answers, just accusations that a lot of the sources are self-authored and opinion blogs (which if anyone would have taken the time to read the sources - they're most definitely not). For example, one of the videos I've linked to is a news broadcast of Marcos Avellan training Kimbo Slice for MMA. This video is a recording of a news broadcast that's hosted on Avellan's school YouTube channel. Where else are we going to get a copy of the recording from TV? It's hosted on the school YouTube channel but it's still a news broadcast that aired on the local Miami news! Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've attempted to provide more third-party sources, only to have a great deal of them go largely ignored.
I would like an unbiased editor to review the sources and determine if Marcos Avellan is notable enough to warrant his own Wikipedia page, especially in the light of many other American grapplers that have a page who are FAR LESS notable (they have one third-party source confirming their participation in local grappling tournaments, whereas Marcos has won world-level elite grappling tournaments). Summary of dispute by Poison WhiskeyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by MdtempPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Marcos Avellan discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
No talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard, but I would also be inclined to close this because the applicant has admitted a strong conflict of interest in regard to this subject. Editing by persons with conflicts of interest is strongly discouraged, but not forbidden, by Wikipedia and in light of that policy it is my opinion that it would be inappropriate to provide dispute resolution assistance. The proper way for a COI editor to edit is to disclose their COI and then request the edit on the article talk page (the {{edit request}} template is designed for that purpose), with the understanding that the answer may simply be "no". If you will "will make any necessary changes to fit within Wikipedia's best practices and guidelines" then you will take that advice, since WP's best practices say COI editors, and most especially (but not only) paid COI editors, should not be editing Wikipedia. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Hi: I was updating my company's Wikipedia page ("Government Finance Officers Association") on Friday, September 6, and all of the information I posted had been blocked and reverted to the previous page. I am the Communications Manager for the company and was asked by my employer to update the page as the currect information posted is wrong. I am new to Wikipedia and will make any necessary changes to fit within Wikipedia's best practices and guidelines. I was currently editing the information when it was blocked. Will you please make my current changes "live?" I will remove any information that drives to our website or is deemed "promotional." Thank you, and I look forward to resolving this issue to get the correct information posted. I appreciate your patience as I am new to this process. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I e-mailed the user to ask if I could please make any necessary changes to the new information I posted. I have not heard back. How do you think we can help? Will you please make the page "live" and allow me to update the information? If changes are requested, I will make them as soon as possible. I appreciate your help and feedback as I am new to this process. Thank you. Summary of dispute by EuroCarGTNot sure what's happening here, there's no dispute. I only did one revert in that page and that was a legitimate revert per WP:EL as the edit has spam, and a promotional link that was in the edit. The edit said in one part, "Go to www. gfoa .org to join today!" Edit I reverted: [4] and Page History to show I did no dispute: [5]. Also the editor had a close connection to that page per WP:COI and the user stated he works with the company meaning he is doing paid editing. So I think this discussion should be closed. Government Finance Officers Association discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Improper venue, see discussion. Whether or not the template should be restored during the process heading towards Deletion review is a matter in, first, the discretion of the merging administrator and, if that fails, then AN. Even if that were not the case, the fact that Underlying lk has declined to participate here makes this futile. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There is a dispute over the meaning of "no consensus" in a deletion discussion where I maintain that WP:NOCONSENSUS is quite clear that any discussions resulting in "no consensus" should be kept. In the deletion discussion (link) there were two votes to merge, two votes to delete (including the nom), and one vote that said merge or delete depending on the outcome of another discussion (but did not specify what they thought should happen based on that outcome). This is a clear cut "no consensus" in my eyes, and I've suggested that they re-nominate the template for deletion and have another go at it. Have you tried to resolve this previously? There has been a great deal of discussion on the closing administrators talk page, my talk page had a fragment and I've consolidated them all to the templates talk page. There are already four editors involved so WP:3O was not a valid option and hence I am here before taking this to WP:AN despite the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of other editors involved as I am trying my hardest to WP:AGF. How do you think we can help? I think that the steps to resolve this would be to restore the template and apply full protection for the duration of this dispute resolution process. I would also believe that another opinion on whether or not a 2/2/1 split is actually "no consensus" would be invaluable. Finally, I believe that another opinion of what the outcome "no consensus" discussions should be in cases where there are no keep votes may be valuable to a possible discussion to change WP:NOCONSENSUS. Summary of dispute by LfdderPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by FrietjesI agree with eh bien mon prince that this seems premature, given that Plastikspork has not been given the chance to respond. no need for WP:DRAMA. Frietjes (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by eh bien mon princePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. It makes more sense to wait for User:Plastikspork's opinion for now. Maybe he will simply endorse the merger.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by PlastiksporkPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. "Template talk:G8+5#TfD result discussion" discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here. It seems to me that this is filed in the wrong venue. The proper forum for review of decisions of any kind made at a deletion venue, including TFD, is Deletion review. Unless someone can give a good reason for this to remain here rather than being filed at that more appropriate venue, it will be closed for that reason after 18:00 UTC on September 11, 2013. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
No extensive talk page discussion as required as a prerequisite by this noticeboard. If other editor will not discuss, consider using the technique suggested here, but you may not get a response since that editor is an intermittently-editing newcomer. (Such editors often vanish.) Instead, you might want to consider this: As a COI editor you should not make your requested edits yourself, but you should call attention to the fact that you want them to be done by using the {{request edit}} template on the talk page (instructions here). Remember that here at Wikipedia there is no hurry. It could take weeks to months before your requests are reviewed, but use of the template will probably speed it up. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Understanding that I have a conflict of interest I have identified myself and proposed changes to the Rambus Inc. Wikipedia entry in order to "reflect a change in corporate strategy and direction that began with the appointment of a new CEO in June 2012 and other changes to the board of directors. While technology licensing continues to be a focus for our company, we are now also focused on collaborating with partners and customers to bring their, and our own, products and solutions to market. We also recently released products that are standards-compliant, reflecting a more collaborative approach with the industry." The proposed changes were not responded to after many weeks posted at which point I edited the page. It was immediately reverted. I asked if there were specific points of disagreement which again went unanswered for the last few weeks. I am hoping for an equitable solution to avoid needless reversions. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Proposed changes to the article, attempted to discuss any points of disagreement. How do you think we can help? Hoping for guidance on next steps or a third party opinion that may help solve the disagreement. Summary of dispute by Steve348Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Rambus discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Closed, resolved. Steven Zhang 12:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This content dispute concerns the nationality of the music group 2Cellos. Whereas they are described as 'Croatian' at their homepage ([6]) and facebook page ([7]), secondary sources describe them as a Croatian-Slovenian duo.[8] The correct description has been extensively discussed at Talk:2Cellos, with the general consensus that the last description is more appropriate. As far as I understand, per WP:SECONDARY, interpretive claims like this one should be based and referenced to secondary sources. An independent review and opinion would be much appreciated. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The discussion on the talk page, request for a third opinion. How do you think we can help? The provision of an independent view would be much appreciated. Summary of dispute by OdiriussPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User Eleassar clearly doesn't understand what the function of primary and secondary sources is,therefore he doesn't understand that there is no content dispute since on their official pages it clearly states that they are Croatian. Secondary sources cannot be used to determine someones national identity,since it is only that persons choice and as already stated,it clearly says on their official page that it is Croatian. Furthermore,there was no general consensus on Eleassars description,that is an outright lie which can be easily checked by going over the talk page,the only one who insists on this description is Eleassar. With all that said,it is clear that there is no content dispute,only Eleassar claims there is due to his poor understanding of primary and secondary sources and his agenda,i have reported him for vandalising the page because that is precisely what he is doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 09:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Forgot to say that there are at least ten times more secondary sources that clearly state they are Croatian, here are just a few : http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/12/ny-2cellos-fall-tour-idUSnPNNY46392+1e0+PRN20130712,http://www.artistdirect.com/entertainment-news/article/2cellos-to-release-in2ition-on-january-15/10362706, http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmusic/article/2CELLOS-to-Launch-First-North-American-Tour-in-April-20130319, http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/music/Canadas+Ezrin+takes+unique+Croatian+2Cellos+under/8444073/story.html, http://www.robe.cz/news/article/2cellos-for-robe/, http://www.contactmusic.com/news/2cellos-classical-music-can-be-boring_3445942. Odiriuss (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by HelpbotttPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have to agree with Odiriuss. This duo, is described as Croatian on every relevant site, except Slovenian ones. --Helpbottt (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC) 2Cellos nationality discussionHi there, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. Am I correct in saying the majority of the discussion is over a year old bar a few comments from 5 months ago or has discussion taken place recently in another location? If the former then why is this DRN being filed now? To me it seems the third opinion given by Number 57 was reasonable. Finally, when referring to the origin of the band itself, it was formed and developed in Croatia primarily so I'd refer to the band as Croatian, judging by the sources this is the view held by many. Putting Slovenian in the nationality also feels awkward and like its being forced in there. Personally I'd like to see more recent discussion on the talk page before taking this as a DRN but I'll let another volunteer weigh in on that before closing it. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 10:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
This looks like it has resolved itself on one of the article talk pages. Steven Zhang 13:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview As new information was released for this video game, I had been adding the English and Japanese language terms for new video game mechanics. In the last 24 hours, Wonchop removed all of the Japanese text multiple times. I approached him on his talk page requesting he not remove it at User talk:Wonchop#Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle, but he moved the discussion to the article talk page at Talk:Pokémon X and Y#Unneccessary Japanese and snarkily said he was tired of me talking to him (he was also snarky here). Blake commented on the talk page, and after WP:3O volunteers turned it down, he took it as meaning "2 vs 1 means we win" and added a message saying it was forbidden. WP:MOS-JA#Using Japanese in the article body supports my argument, but because I revealed I had been involved in the formation of WP:VG/JP (which I mistakenly thought had something relevant) he will not acknowledge the manual of style's statement, believing I had been involved in its formation as well and therefore cannot be used. Have you tried to resolve this previously? A third opinion was sought by Wonchop, but because Blake had participated this negated the use. I also removed some, but not all, of the accompanying Japanese text but Wonchop does not want any of it, saying I am introducing a Japanese bias to the article, when it is an article about a Japanese subject. How do you think we can help? A third opinion was sought, and I have found that I cannot adequately communicate with Wonchop due to stubbornness on his side whenever I try to communicate with him. I have brought a communication problem with him here in the past and it somewhat helped. Summary of dispute by WonchopPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ryulong has been overly defiant in this insistance of including Japanese where it is not neccessary, given that the game has already been supplied with official terminology, under the rather boastful assumption that 'it's a Japanese game, therefore it MUST have Japanese text everywhere'. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Non-English games states "For systems and games, English terms are preferred over non-English equivalents when the difference would either be confusing to the reader or unimportant within the context of the article." and despite his insistance that it is 'informational', it is mainly proven to be just noise as many of the things he demands remain translated are terms that are either just katakana or literal translations (eg. the translation of 'Mega Evolution' as 'Mega Shinka'). At the most, the article only needs Japanese translations for the game's title, the game's setting (unless it is mentioned in another linked article) and at a stretch, the Pokémon Bank and Pokémon Transporter apps, as they can be considered as seperate software. He has also been very defiant in some of the beneficial edits I have made, such as simplifying the Gameplay description to not focus heavily on specific Pokémon (since it'll become irrelevant when the game is released) and repetition. Ryulong's behaviour has been, to put it as nicely as I can, hypocritical, often accusing me of disrupting the article when he is clearly no better himself, if not worse.Wonchop (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by BlakePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. While I agree with Wonchop's opinion of the content in the article, I disagree with the way that both parties are going about this. Ryulong mentions how stubborn Wonchop is being, but he is being equally as stubborn. An edit war takes two to participate, and as such, they are both responsible. He also mentions writing the guideline that he is enforcing, which makes his stance very sketchy, and while I don't mean to make any enemies, I just can't agree with the way that he is participating in this debate. Wonchop also brought some WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments which makes his points just as invalid as Ryulong's. I would have liked a third party editor to step in, but it would be best if they were knowledgeable about both video game articles and the Japanese manual of style, similar to Ryulong, but with less of an aggressive attitude. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Talk:Pokémon X and Y#Unnecessary Japanese discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Blake, I did not write the guideline I am enforcing.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I feel that this conflict involves illogical adherence to MOSJA, a community guideline, versus the wikiproject guideline of WP:VG/GL. The question of Japanese usage should be case by case where the careful wording of VG/GL should be taken over the more vague MOSJA. No wikiproject owns a page and since the two sides conflict, typically MOSJA would be preferred, but on its vagueness and the narrow case I'd defer to VG/GL specific reading of, " English terms are preferred over non-English equivalents when the difference would either be confusing to the reader or unimportant within the context of the article." The question that must be asked by both parties: "Why is it an improvement to use the English name and immediately follow it with a different Japanese name without addressing the name in context or referencing it again?" ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Outside opinion - Like Chris, I'd side with not including the japanese where there's no explicit need for them, especially when there's an official English term. At WP:MOS-JA#Japanese terms it says Give the romanization for any Japanese name or term written in kanji or kana by following the pattern. Things like "Mega Evolution" aren't romanizations of Japanese names. They are the English name for that aspect. Sentences like this: star-shaped Kalos Region (カロス地方 Karosu-chihō?), with Lumiose City (Miare City (ミアレシティ Miare Shiti?) in Japan) as its central city. are now more confusing with nested parenthesis. (Please note: I am not stating this in a capacity of a DRN volunteer, rather I am a WP:VG contributor and am commenting from an editor point of view) Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 08:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I did not say I was mediating this. If you cannot argue why your edit is an improvement than do not make the edit. Forgetting anything to do with policy for a moment, if you cannot justify the action, why defend it? Wonchop has as much right as any other editor to challenge something that they find questionable or detrimental to the article and the justification for the edit is backed with a reason. Ryulong, you are on the other side, but you do not seem to have given a reason why the names aid in comprehension of the subject or are an improvement at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
|
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
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
Nishidani deleted my editing. the Diff page. The problems are:
- Is the term "After their surrender" correct?
- The first sentence should include important facts ( who attacked, where was it) and possibly exclude less important information (the date relatively to the independence declaration).
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
it is discussed in the talk page. We could not find a compromise.
How do you think we can help?
Hopefully, a volunteer will convince us to find a compromise.
Summary of dispute by nishidani
This is being discussed on the page. Generally ykantor's edit (a) rewrote this, which is, as anyone can see a source-adequate statement of the totally misleading lead that preceded it. Ykantor complains I cancelled his revision of my edit. Were I to complain, I would note he cancelled my edit, and did so rewriting a contentless garbled and tediously repetitive sentence to replace it. (b) he added a totally irrelevant and lengthy note clearly intended to contaminate a neutral description of the event with the insinuation that 'Arabs' were accustomed to massacring Jews. That didn't provide historic context, it implied this event was a behavioural problem in Arabs. This is all I will say here. One does not go to this page to complain about a dispute when the talk page is productively engaged in resolving the questions mentioned.Nishidani (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Kfar Etzion massacre discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
- Nishidani's version is much better than Ykantor's one. It provides the historical background, which is important in the context of controversial and dramatic events such the massacres of the 1948 war. Nishidani's version is also more detailled. Anyway, major problem is the behaviour of Ykantor who systematically adds "quotes" that tend to influence the neutral description of the events as well as the fact he systematically discusses each detail and complains when discussions don't go in the direction that he wants. He is in infraction with WP:POINT with his numerous requests and also by the way he intervenes on the different talk pages of wikipedia. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
After a few days, I fell that I have to say that those reactions are mostly not true:
- rewriting a contentless garbled and tediously repetitive sentence
- added a totally irrelevant and lengthy note clearly intended to contaminate a neutral description
- ...that 'Arabs' were accustomed to massacring Jews
- talk page is productively engaged in resolving the questions
- ... systematically adds "quotes" that tend to influence the neutral description of the events
- ...He is in infraction with WP:POINT with his numerous requests
All these sentences are not true. The Talkpage discussion is fairly elaborate, and one can read it and decide for himself. I am sure what will be the consequences. Ykantor (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Good evening! I'm sorry it took so long for a volunteer to take on this case, but we've all been busy with other cases. Whilst, in theory, I think I could give summary judgment and close this case, I want to ask some questions first - namely: Why is the date of this massacre relative to the date of the Israeli Declaration of Independence considered important enough to warrant inclusion in the article? (to be answered by the party who wishes to include such information). --The Historian (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Historian, Thank you for your intervention. If no answer is given to your question today I will make a comment on this particular point. Pluto2012 (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
(1) This was the state of the lead before either I or Ykantor began to look at the page. Nobody for months, perhaps a year, worried about the received connection between the date of the massacre and the day of the Israeli Declaration of Independence.
(2) I intervened, since the whole lead sentence falsified a complex reality in which, certainly a massacre occurred, but it did not consist of the whole population, which was not just ‘Jews’ or ‘inhabitants’ but an entrenched military force with an active role in waging war in the Arab sector. I respected the consensual indication in that sentence linking the episode to the Declaration of Independence, because the whole battle and tragedy occurred in order to secure time for that Declaration's military consequences.
(3) Ykantor reverted both my rewriting which is attentive to the problems, and which included the consensual text point you worry about, a reference to the Israeli Declaration of Independence that had been stable for months, with the deceptive edit summary ‘add important points to the first sentence’.
It’s deceptive because he didn’t add: he wiped out both my edit and the stabilized points in the phrasing prior to my intervention. Why, I repeat, he thinks he can wipe out an item no one has challenged, and with it, wipe out my polishing of that page’s lead sentence, and say he is ‘adding’ when he just deleted information, and then charge that there is a ‘dispute’ requiring mediation, is beyond me. By the same logic, I could have hauled him here to dispute his erasure of both my edit and the embedded consensual linking of the episode to the Israeli Independence Declaration. This is a complete waste of time. The issue is under the scrutiny of several editors, and only Ykantor complains. If he is dissatisfied, he must convince several editors that his erasure improves the text. It doesn’t, and I haven't time to broker a compromise on ever edit I might make through exhaustive recourse to pages like this. We are a community of editors, and Ykantor's habit of picking out one and trying to open yet one more huge thread contesting the p's and q's of an edit challenging one of his, is ridiculous, and contrary to wikipedia's procedures, where these things are a last resort. The problem has been resolved.Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- I concurr with what Nishidani writes. Particularly regarding Ykantor's behaviour.
Regarding the content, the fact that the massacre took place two days before the end of the Mandate is important because the Yishuv (Jewish) population and leadership really feared what was going to happen and particularly what the "powerful" (was it ?) Arab Legion would do. They were prepared but a war is always uncertain. (eg Lebanon announced not participating a few hours before 15 May). In this context, the involvment of the Arab Legion in a massacre (controvesed but not at the time) had a deep impact : voluntary or not, a message was sent and Jewish Leadership reacted accordingly.
This remains a complex question and the current lead may not be the best to take into account that point but the "dispute" between Nishidani (more others) and Ykantor is not about this. As Nishidani points out, Ykantor without the support of any other contributor performs modifications on complex and controversial articles that are followed by tenths of others and, after complains everywhere against those who reject his actions. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- As I already proposed to Nishidani:"Your English is better than mine, and you can re-write the sentence as you wish", he could have polish, balance, make it attentive, de-garble and stabilize the sentence by himself. So we can concentrate in the dispute itself- The problems are:
- Is the term "After their surrender" correct?
- The first sentence should include important facts ( who attacked, where was it) and possibly exclude less important information (the date relatively to the independence declaration). Ykantor (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- You rewrote my sentence; I expanded the earlier sentence. You are complaining I should rewrite your sentence which eviscerates the earlier text, and my modification, and introduces a POV. Really, man. Think this over with precision. Peer editorial review seems to favour my version. Punto e basta. If it has some wobble in it, Pluto, Zero and yourself can thrash it out and trim it further. We are a collegial society. This is not a me against him/her one-off battle edit per edit.
- (b) My edit reads:'a massacre that took place after a two (two=day) battle between Jewish settlers and soldiers and a combined force of the Arab Legion and Arab villagers, at Kibbutz Kfar Etzion.'
- (i) sources are totally confused. (ii)POV sources number all those killed in the 2-day battle as victims of the massacre which apparently (in my view almost certainly) took place after a signal (deceptive or sincere is not the point) was given that Jewish fighters were surrendering. A 'massacre' strictly speaking occurs when unarmed people or people not capable of adequately defending themselves, are murdered in considerable numbers. It took place after the main battle. We simply don't know exactly what happened, we do not know for sure if the flag was a feint or a real surrender (I personally tend to think the latter). The only way to handle this per WP:NPOV is to write 'after the battle'.
- (b)Other editors disagree with your unique preference.Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- As I already proposed to Nishidani:"Your English is better than mine, and you can re-write the sentence as you wish", he could have polish, balance, make it attentive, de-garble and stabilize the sentence by himself. So we can concentrate in the dispute itself- The problems are:
- There is some advance, as you accept adding {killed} "at Kfar Etzion" to the first sentence. Would you advance further and add who killed?, and who was killed? in the first sentence? Ykantor (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Don't be silly. This sounds like a pilpul exercise (which would be fine by me if we were arguing on the Torah and Talmud). 'at Kfar Etzion' already exists. Of course it was Jews who were killed in the massacre. That's obvious in the text. You want me to make the first sentence somewhat ugly by adding 'Jews' just before 'Jewish settlers and soldiers'? I'd have no problem with that other than stylistic and commonsensical. It's called 'overegging the pud'. Sources blame the Arab legion (b) local villagers.It's dumb. Edits are made on the page, and discussed there, between several editors. You do not use this page to negotiate a binding agreement between, say, just one editor (me) and yourself that is ostensibly binding to that page.
- To repeat, the fundamental editing principle here, which Pluto, Zero and myself all underwrite in blood, is that drafting anything where several good sources are in conflict, requires all serious editors (and I think you are developing promise in that regard, and I say that without any air of being patronizing. We have a lot of bad editors who just push crap or POVs in here, and you are a class apart) to phrase everything with an acute ear to the dissonances. One must not (a) entertain a private theory (b) privilege one source over another. That is why close attention to phrasing, modulation is crucial for these articles. Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- yours:"Of course it was Jews who were killed in the massacre. That's obvious in the text.". so why should not it written in the first sentence? Once an ignorant reader read the article, he should know the important facts before the less important one. Ykantor (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- For Yahweh/Christ/Allah/Satan/Juppiter's sake, if that's what bothered you, why didn't you just add the word. Go for it, but please, please do not make extraordinary extenuating exasperating use of boards and talks when a simple edit or point is at stake.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- There is some advance, as you accept adding {killed} "at Kfar Etzion" to the first sentence. Would you advance further and add who killed?, and who was killed? in the first sentence? Ykantor (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Do we agree that my initial opening sentence is correct? ( except of "after their surrender"). For our convenience, the sentence is:"The Kfar Etzion massacre refers to the massacre of Kibbutz Kfar Etzion members and soldiers, on May 13, 1948, after their surrender to the Arab Legion and Arab villagers, who attacked their village, Kfar Etzion". As discussed, the sentence style and syntax can be improved. Ykantor (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- I added myself to the dispute. We are all tired of the "pilpul" situation.
- If Ykantor is good faith (I know "WP:AGF"), he will be able to and will answer precisely to the following question in compliance with the 4th pilar of wikipedia.
- What is the main difference between your version and the current one ?
- Why do you refuse by yourself to introduce all pov's of view on any topic and do you consider there are sides (even among contributors) and that each side (represented by contributors) would have to give his point of view and another side would have to take care of others in order to comply with WP:NPOV ?
- Pluto2012 (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Will you please write it in the talk page? I try to minimize my editing here to reducing the number of the friction points. BTW your 2nd point is not clear. Ykantor (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Ykantor,
- What is not "clear" ? You have been warned about this since 20 May ie for nearly 4 months. On this talk page and here and at other places. You keep making as if you was not aware of that point. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Will you please write it in the talk page? I try to minimize my editing here to reducing the number of the friction points. BTW your 2nd point is not clear. Ykantor (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Closed, resolved. Steven Zhang 12:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This content dispute concerns the nationality of the music group 2Cellos. Whereas they are described as 'Croatian' at their homepage ([11]) and facebook page ([12]), secondary sources describe them as a Croatian-Slovenian duo.[13] The correct description has been extensively discussed at Talk:2Cellos, with the general consensus that the last description is more appropriate. As far as I understand, per WP:SECONDARY, interpretive claims like this one should be based and referenced to secondary sources. An independent review and opinion would be much appreciated. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The discussion on the talk page, request for a third opinion. How do you think we can help? The provision of an independent view would be much appreciated. Summary of dispute by OdiriussPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User Eleassar clearly doesn't understand what the function of primary and secondary sources is,therefore he doesn't understand that there is no content dispute since on their official pages it clearly states that they are Croatian. Secondary sources cannot be used to determine someones national identity,since it is only that persons choice and as already stated,it clearly says on their official page that it is Croatian. Furthermore,there was no general consensus on Eleassars description,that is an outright lie which can be easily checked by going over the talk page,the only one who insists on this description is Eleassar. With all that said,it is clear that there is no content dispute,only Eleassar claims there is due to his poor understanding of primary and secondary sources and his agenda,i have reported him for vandalising the page because that is precisely what he is doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 09:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Forgot to say that there are at least ten times more secondary sources that clearly state they are Croatian, here are just a few : http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/12/ny-2cellos-fall-tour-idUSnPNNY46392+1e0+PRN20130712,http://www.artistdirect.com/entertainment-news/article/2cellos-to-release-in2ition-on-january-15/10362706, http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmusic/article/2CELLOS-to-Launch-First-North-American-Tour-in-April-20130319, http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/music/Canadas+Ezrin+takes+unique+Croatian+2Cellos+under/8444073/story.html, http://www.robe.cz/news/article/2cellos-for-robe/, http://www.contactmusic.com/news/2cellos-classical-music-can-be-boring_3445942. Odiriuss (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by HelpbotttPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have to agree with Odiriuss. This duo, is described as Croatian on every relevant site, except Slovenian ones. --Helpbottt (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC) 2Cellos nationality discussionHi there, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. Am I correct in saying the majority of the discussion is over a year old bar a few comments from 5 months ago or has discussion taken place recently in another location? If the former then why is this DRN being filed now? To me it seems the third opinion given by Number 57 was reasonable. Finally, when referring to the origin of the band itself, it was formed and developed in Croatia primarily so I'd refer to the band as Croatian, judging by the sources this is the view held by many. Putting Slovenian in the nationality also feels awkward and like its being forced in there. Personally I'd like to see more recent discussion on the talk page before taking this as a DRN but I'll let another volunteer weigh in on that before closing it. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 10:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
This looks like it has resolved itself on one of the article talk pages. Steven Zhang 13:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview As new information was released for this video game, I had been adding the English and Japanese language terms for new video game mechanics. In the last 24 hours, Wonchop removed all of the Japanese text multiple times. I approached him on his talk page requesting he not remove it at User talk:Wonchop#Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle, but he moved the discussion to the article talk page at Talk:Pokémon X and Y#Unneccessary Japanese and snarkily said he was tired of me talking to him (he was also snarky here). Blake commented on the talk page, and after WP:3O volunteers turned it down, he took it as meaning "2 vs 1 means we win" and added a message saying it was forbidden. WP:MOS-JA#Using Japanese in the article body supports my argument, but because I revealed I had been involved in the formation of WP:VG/JP (which I mistakenly thought had something relevant) he will not acknowledge the manual of style's statement, believing I had been involved in its formation as well and therefore cannot be used. Have you tried to resolve this previously? A third opinion was sought by Wonchop, but because Blake had participated this negated the use. I also removed some, but not all, of the accompanying Japanese text but Wonchop does not want any of it, saying I am introducing a Japanese bias to the article, when it is an article about a Japanese subject. How do you think we can help? A third opinion was sought, and I have found that I cannot adequately communicate with Wonchop due to stubbornness on his side whenever I try to communicate with him. I have brought a communication problem with him here in the past and it somewhat helped. Summary of dispute by WonchopPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ryulong has been overly defiant in this insistance of including Japanese where it is not neccessary, given that the game has already been supplied with official terminology, under the rather boastful assumption that 'it's a Japanese game, therefore it MUST have Japanese text everywhere'. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Non-English games states "For systems and games, English terms are preferred over non-English equivalents when the difference would either be confusing to the reader or unimportant within the context of the article." and despite his insistance that it is 'informational', it is mainly proven to be just noise as many of the things he demands remain translated are terms that are either just katakana or literal translations (eg. the translation of 'Mega Evolution' as 'Mega Shinka'). At the most, the article only needs Japanese translations for the game's title, the game's setting (unless it is mentioned in another linked article) and at a stretch, the Pokémon Bank and Pokémon Transporter apps, as they can be considered as seperate software. He has also been very defiant in some of the beneficial edits I have made, such as simplifying the Gameplay description to not focus heavily on specific Pokémon (since it'll become irrelevant when the game is released) and repetition. Ryulong's behaviour has been, to put it as nicely as I can, hypocritical, often accusing me of disrupting the article when he is clearly no better himself, if not worse.Wonchop (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by BlakePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. While I agree with Wonchop's opinion of the content in the article, I disagree with the way that both parties are going about this. Ryulong mentions how stubborn Wonchop is being, but he is being equally as stubborn. An edit war takes two to participate, and as such, they are both responsible. He also mentions writing the guideline that he is enforcing, which makes his stance very sketchy, and while I don't mean to make any enemies, I just can't agree with the way that he is participating in this debate. Wonchop also brought some WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments which makes his points just as invalid as Ryulong's. I would have liked a third party editor to step in, but it would be best if they were knowledgeable about both video game articles and the Japanese manual of style, similar to Ryulong, but with less of an aggressive attitude. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Talk:Pokémon X and Y#Unnecessary Japanese discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Blake, I did not write the guideline I am enforcing.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I feel that this conflict involves illogical adherence to MOSJA, a community guideline, versus the wikiproject guideline of WP:VG/GL. The question of Japanese usage should be case by case where the careful wording of VG/GL should be taken over the more vague MOSJA. No wikiproject owns a page and since the two sides conflict, typically MOSJA would be preferred, but on its vagueness and the narrow case I'd defer to VG/GL specific reading of, " English terms are preferred over non-English equivalents when the difference would either be confusing to the reader or unimportant within the context of the article." The question that must be asked by both parties: "Why is it an improvement to use the English name and immediately follow it with a different Japanese name without addressing the name in context or referencing it again?" ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Outside opinion - Like Chris, I'd side with not including the japanese where there's no explicit need for them, especially when there's an official English term. At WP:MOS-JA#Japanese terms it says Give the romanization for any Japanese name or term written in kanji or kana by following the pattern. Things like "Mega Evolution" aren't romanizations of Japanese names. They are the English name for that aspect. Sentences like this: star-shaped Kalos Region (カロス地方 Karosu-chihō?), with Lumiose City (Miare City (ミアレシティ Miare Shiti?) in Japan) as its central city. are now more confusing with nested parenthesis. (Please note: I am not stating this in a capacity of a DRN volunteer, rather I am a WP:VG contributor and am commenting from an editor point of view) Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 08:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I did not say I was mediating this. If you cannot argue why your edit is an improvement than do not make the edit. Forgetting anything to do with policy for a moment, if you cannot justify the action, why defend it? Wonchop has as much right as any other editor to challenge something that they find questionable or detrimental to the article and the justification for the edit is backed with a reason. Ryulong, you are on the other side, but you do not seem to have given a reason why the names aid in comprehension of the subject or are an improvement at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
RfC pending. This forum does not accept disputes pending in other forums. Once the 30-day period of the RfC has run and has been closed you may return here if there is still a dispute, but if you do so, you must list all the other editors in the dispute. Failing to do so will cause the request to be closed as an unfair burden on the volunteers here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview ForWolf attacks on humans: Article has several highly reliable, solid sources on non trivial number of wolf attacks. Many citations constitute unreliable sources for long list of wolf attacks beginning within fairly dim reaches of history. Though in some sense useful I contend that these citations are improperly employed. The article concerns the science of animal behavior. Article can define criteria for use of sourcing, distinguishing science, folklore and other documents. I further contend that much of existing content is merely a political screed, rather than objective science. Several existing, disuputed citations may support this view 76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? third party request and notice boards... Few responses were non analytic; some were mildly hostile. How do you think we can help? evaluation of historical documents as source for science of animal behavoir; evaluation of sources that are "political." Summary of dispute by severalPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Wolf attacks on humans discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Inadequate, stale discussion at article talk page. This noticeboard requires extensive discussion at the article talk page and there has only been one comment on this topic since the middle of May. I am taking the liberty of copying Bkonrad's comments below to the article talk page and suggesting that the IP editor respond there. Moreover, the request, "I want this to be discussed with other Admins," is not within the scope of this noticeboard, AN is the administrator's noticeboard but note that at Wikipedia administrators do not have any special say on content matters. The volunteers who work here are not, in general, administrators. If editors will not discuss (and I'm not saying whether that is or is not an issue in this case, just responding to the suggestion that it might be), consider following the recommendations made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The wikipage to describe the meaning of INDIAN is incomplete and it should work the same way it works for Americans, I have tried to correct the page but one editor is not debating in the Talk page but reverting my changes, I want this page has to be corrected to reflect the most accurate information possible. He has even added this page to some automated script so any changes to that page is being reverted. It should be like the meaning of word - Americans ,typing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans in the browser tales you to US americans pages whereas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INDIANs goes to Indian (disambiguation)page. Please see the following page for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian I want this to be discussed with other Admins. Have you tried to resolve this previously? -NA- How do you think we can help? The other editor has blocked the page with some automatic scripts that is preventing anybody making the changes for that page, I need your suggestions, Thanks -Ranjith M Summary of dispute by BkonradPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Hmmm, I'm not sure how to respond. To start with, let's get the location of the supposed dispute correct. See Talk:Indian#May 2013 discussion and the corresponding disambiguation page Indian. I'm not sure why the IP thinks I am not participating in discussion at the talk page. I have responded there several times. I invite any interested readers to consider the various changes made by the IP (as well as tenor of comments provided in the edit summaries).
To sum up, I feel the IP edits are not neutral and do not accurately reflect the ambiguity inherent in the term Indian. older ≠ wiser 12:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Meaning of word INDIAN discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Conduct dispute/inadequate discussion. This noticeboard does not handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes (conduct disputes go to RFC/U or ANI). Also closing for inadequate talk page discussion; even if this was a content dispute rather than a conduct dispute, there has been no extensive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This started as a discussion over photographs that I had submitted to an article on aviation artist Marc Y Chenevert. LGA tagged the photos for deletion even though the copyright authority had been verified. A submission email of authority was made to Wikipedia Permissions and the photos have been appropriately authorized. As a result of this skirmish user LGA then proceeded to find any and all that he could to discredit the article that is sourced with appropriate sources including a notable published book by Marc Y Chenevert. For the last several days now there has been an array of new tags and add ons to the article in an attempt to get it removed from Wikipedia. The article is very well cited. LGA has attempted to make it appear that there is some connection between myself and Marc Y Chenevert. I am aware of who he is and very familiar with his work which prompted me to write the article. His service in the military in the 1970s as a gay airman that was discharged because of his sexual orientation certainly adds to his notability along with his amazing artistic contributions. I did remove the link to his website in response to LGA's complaints that the article might be a Conflict of Interest. The intent of adding the link to the Chenevert site was only for the purpose of viewing his work and not for the purpose of trying to sell his work. This article was done to honor Mr. Chenevert for his contributions to the history of Braniff Airways, and for his service to his country, and of course to allow those interested in aviation art to have an additional outlet to view an artist of this type. There is no attempt here to advertise or promote or otherwise sell Mr. Chenevert's artwork. I write Braniff Airways history articles and subjects associated with that subject. I believe this has just become and avenue for an upset LGA to retaliate for my standing up for the validity of my article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? discussions have taken place on my talk place as well as the Mark Y. Chenevert Talk place. I have addressed these issues with LGA. There is also another editor that has joined in Sbirch I believe and LGA has now attempted to link him and I together which does not make sense. I just want this article to stand on its own. It certainly has good citations and much better than many articles on Wikipedia. How do you think we can help? I would like for LGA to leave me alone and to stop picking on my article. I have addressed everything that he has brought up and then he finds something else. You can clearly see that in his edits on the article. What has prompted me to file this dispute is that he has now nominated the article for deletion. This would be a huge disservice to those that are enjoying reading this article. I think you will see that these actions are vindictive in nature and border on harassment. Summary of dispute by LGAInteresting choice of venue, but hay what the hell. My summary of the dispute is that while new file patrolling I came across a number of images uploaded by Mmb777e all of which he claimed he owned, but had a copyright statement from the artist Marc Y. Chenevert on them. I tagged them A WP:ORTS ticket has been received confirming the artist has licensed the images. Now turning to the article, it has a number of issues.
It was my intention to convert the article into a stub but as I had no reliable independent sources on which to do so and it being a BLP I posted to the talk page and here we are. I have not in fact nominated the article at WP:AFD deispite having ample grounds to do so ("Fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent reliable sources"). I also suspect that this will have to be closed in short order as editors don't WP:OWN articles they contribute to. LGA talkedits 12:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Marc Y. Chenevert discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The purpose of Wiki is to encourage editors knowledgeable about the subject matter to contribute to the online community of learning. Mmb777e has contributed to multiple articles in a positive way about Braniff. Our issues began with images where LGA overstepped where there was no accusation of copyright misuse. Despite that, we resolved that issue by tagging images with
|
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs)
- Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs)
- Joy (talk · contribs)
- Bobrayner (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
A group of users think that it is wrong to have criticism section in the article about hatred towards an ethnic group, in this case Serbs, because it implies that such a sentiment may not even exist and justifies this sentiment (based on source which I believe is outdated politically motivated primary source). This view is also based on WP:CONSISTENCY - because no other article (link to navigation template with 45 of them) on hatred toward an ethnic group does not have criticism section.
I proposed not to deny or justify hatred in Controversy section but to present explanations in one or couple of sentences within the main body of the article (with no outdated politically motivated primary sources) or to point to articles which provide more context in the See also section.
Peacemaker67 and Joy do not agree.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussion
How do you think we can help?
To organize discussion based on human common sense, arguments and wikipedia policies without unnecessary personalization, uncivility and fallacy, which would hopefully lead to consensus about this dispute.
Summary of dispute by Peacemaker67
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I will not be able to enter into this discussion properly until I have access to a real computer (at least five days away). I'm on iPhone, and it just isn't practical. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- I will just briefly add that the "group of users" Antidiskriminator alludes to is a group of one. The other two editors that have engaged in this discussion are a registered account that has made a total of two edits (both to the talk page thread in question), and an IP that has made one edit (also to this talk page thread). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your patience. I'll put aside the other problems with the article (such as WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK, on which I agree with Joy and bobrayner). The central issue here is the means by which we include in the article an examination of how entirely legitimate examples of "Anti-Serb/Serbia sentiment" during WWI (the reaction to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand) and WWII (Hitler's attitude to the Serbs and the genocidal policies and actions of the Ustashe) were woven into a propaganda narrative in the 1980's and 1990's by Slobodan Milošević and his fellow travellers. This propaganda narrative of perpetual Serb victimhood was then used to justify and encourage "all sorts of nastiness" (as Joy puts it) during the breakup of Yugoslavia. Antidiskriminator relies on WP:CONSISTENCY, which has been an inactive proposal since 2006 and on which there was no apparent consensus. A quick look at Wikipedia talk:Consistency will confirm what the perceived problems with the proposal were, and several editors made cogent observations against the proposal with which I have sympathy. In my view, key amongst them are, "The fact that two different groups of people say two different things is not logically contradictory" and "encyclopedia articles are more like separate stories. Individual stories have consistency--truth relative to them. Taken together, however, they are a jumble of purported facts that don't really have much to do with each other." Whether this article is stylistically consistent with other articles on ethnic hatred is WP:OTHERSTUFF in my view. The actions of Serbs in the past that have contributed to "Anti-Serb sentiment" (such as colonisation of Albanian-speaking areas during the Balkan Wars), and the use of past misdeeds against Serbs to justify Serb misdeeds in the 80's/90's are both central to the story of "Anti-Serb sentiment", and to remove them or reduce discussion of them to a couple of sentences (as Antidiskriminator proposes) would mean that the article would not tell the whole story (and would lack context). The idea that discussion of the use of "Anti-Serb sentiment" as propaganda in the 80's/90's could imply that "Anti-Serb sentiment" has never existed is inherently contradictory. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Joy
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Please see Talk:Anti-Serb sentiment#Criticism?? etc. The entirety of the article has a variety of problems; pruning the criticism altogether, which is what was suggested originally, would easily be seen as whitewashing, and adding just another problem to the pile. Antidiskriminator seems to have a tendency of making various edits consistent with Serbian nationalist talking points, recently he 'earned' an WP:ARBMAC topic ban over one Serbian World War II issue (a Chetnik commander) and led to a move ban over another (the article about the Nazi occupation of Serbia), and this appears to be no exception - let's shun the criticism from the get-go just because it doesn't fit our preferred narrative. Assorted Croatian and other nationalists who tried to delete the entire article on their own deluded premises notwithstanding -- the criticism of the use of this term in the more recent history is entirely legitimate, and is already sourced to several English-language publications that appear to be reliable sources. The term has been tainted in the 1980s with the SANU Memorandum's perfidious invocation of "Serbophobia", and in turn Slobodan Milošević's fake outrage about it - they used it as a blatant technique to make the Serbs look like the perpetual victims, while at the same time they orchestrated all sorts of nastiness in the breakup of Yugoslavia. The encyclopedic entry on the phenomenon and the phrase would be incomplete without the clear description of this issue. Also, as I said earlier, having the criticism section does not in any way invalidate the description of the legitimate applications of the phrase, such as those related to WWII. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by bobrayner
I agree with Joy's stance that the article has broader problems; it's a collection of Serb-nationalist talking points; any fragment that fits the Serb-victimhood trope is put on the page without context. The issue over the criticism section raised by Antidiskriminator seems to be highly selective; there are wider issues that need to be fixed. Same problem we had at Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo. bobrayner (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Timbouctou
I agree with Peacemaker67, Joy and bobrayner. Although the article has been cleaned up in the meantime, it still suffers from issues which I am not sure can be dealt with at all. Anti-something articles need to rely on sources which deal with the topic directly, and unlike antisemitism and a host of other examples of ethnic hatred, not a single book (Serbian or otherwise) exists which does that in this particular case. The only work written on the subject directly is by MacDonald, and he actually talks about it as a narrative that was used by Serb nationalist to justify Serbia's role in the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s. Nobody is saying that Serbs hadn't been persecuted in WW2, but we already have a dedicated and much more detailed article about that issue. Once you remove that part, all you have left is a WP:SYNTH of quotes cherry picked from Google Books, from various historical periods, and provided with little or no context. Also, I object to Antidiskriminator's usage of those quotes. Many works written by credible historians talk about "anti-Serbian" sentiment or policies (as in "against foreign policies led by Serbia"), which in Antidiskriminator's interpretation are interchangeable with "anti-Serb" (as in "against the ethnic group"), which then he uses as synonymous with "Serbophobic" (as in "irrationally obsessed with persecuting Serbs"). These are not the same thing and treating these terms as if they are without taking into account the context of the sourced text and the events talked about is way below encyclopedic standards. Although anti-Serb sentiment does exist and has manifested itself overtly on several occasions over the course of history - especially when talking about periods of WW1 and WW2 and the Yugoslav wars - this article presents it as a coherent historical narrative which depicts Serbs as perennial victims of their neighbours. And that idea a) is not represented in any source and b) was outright debunked by at least some sources. So removing criticism of the term would hardly be helpful. Timbouctou (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Anti-Serb sentiment discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hi;
I've asked another regular to help me mediate in this matter, and until he agrees, this will be quite slow to kick off.
--The Historian (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've got a second mediator who's willing to assist on this matter, and he's going to take the lead. To start off, I'd like parties to provide summaries of no more than one paragraph of their cases. Antidiskriminator, I want you to have a look at your link that is entitled "45 of them", since it just shows a template - I'm not 100% sure as to what it's meant to show, and I'd like it if you'd correct that please. The Historian (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Corrected.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Fromm looking at the Wikipedia:Consistency, the rule described therein only applies to factual consistency. Stylistic consistency, which is what I think you're arguing over, is dealt with in the manual of style. From what I've read on the manual of style, it appears that Wikipedia does favour consistency across all articles. This is my opinion, and I'd like the leading mediator to take a look to see whether I'm on the right track, so don't take my reasoning here as gospel until the lead mediator has given it the OK. --The Historian (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes you are right. Stylistic consistency is dealt with in the manual of style. WP:CONSISTENCY only say that "the organization and presentation of the information should be uniform across articles" which confirm your oppinion that "Wikipedia does favour consistency across all articles"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Based on this fact, could parties make submissions of not more than one paragraph, written in this "discussion" session, on what effect the fact that WP:Consistensy does not apply might have on this dispute, and how we should proceed. I ask this merely because one of the parties (I've lost track of whom) alleges that WP:CONSISTENSY does apply. Since we have worked out that it doesn't, the original claimant's submission that it does has fallen away. --The Historian (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- I believe I've essentially addressed this above, but once WP:CONSISTENCY is put to one side, the remaining issue is that User:Antidiskriminator thinks "that it is wrong to have criticism section in the article about hatred towards an ethnic group, in this case Serbs, because it implies that such a sentiment may not even exist and justifies this sentiment". Antidiskriminator's apparent belief that detailed discussion of the use of "Anti-Serb sentiment" as propaganda in the 80's/90's implies that "Anti-Serb sentiment" has never existed, or somehow denies or justifies hatred of Serbs, is inherently contradictory. My view is that either the section should stand as is, or the existing content of the section in question should instead be placed in chronologically appropriate places in the lead and body. The use of "Anti-Serb sentiment" in the 1980s/90s by Milošević and his fellow travellers is an integral part of the chronological narrative of "Anti-Serb sentiment". Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Although WP:CONSISTENCY does not directly apply here (because it deals only with factual consistency) it is helpful for this dispute because it confirms that "stylistic — the organization and presentation of the information should be uniform across articles" and explains that Wikipedia:Manual of Style exists to deal with stylistic consistency. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Consistency is a red herring. Whether or not the article should have exactly the same headings as other articles about anti-whatever-sentiment, that sidesteps the article's bigger issues. Focussing on the name of a heading rather on serious content problems is worrying. bobrayner (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about not coming back earlier - real life and a long and messy arbitration case in which I'm an involved party got in the way. I've reviewed the article in its entirety. There is very little in each section describing the history of anti-serb discrimination look a bit "empty". I would suggest that parts of the "criticism and controversy" section should be integrated into the main historical section of the article. The "Serbophobia" section...I'm not 100% sure where that goes. The "breakup of Yugoslavia" section is quite lacking in substance, so think about putting "serbophobia" in there. Otherwise, there's very little else I can do.
--The Historian (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- There are two other editors that could help resolving this dispute. One actually added this disputed section to the article (PRODUCER) and another (User:Timbouctou) substantially edited it. I notified both of them about this discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think we can safely assume (after a week's wait) they are not interested in engaging here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Maybe second mediator can help to resolve this dispute.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- I added my opinion above. Timbouctou (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Maybe second mediator can help to resolve this dispute.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Respected Dignities, I am the father of the subject of the article "Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati". The subject and me were degraded, insulted or personally attacked in a impolite manner many times by the Wikipedian editors not only at the talk page Sections of the article but also at the talk page of the editors themselves in discussion about the subject of the article. The name of the few of the respected editors are NeilN, Yunshui, Ihardlythinkso. Instead of replying to suggestions/concerns/sections/questions in a polite manner they attacked me, subject, others personally by degrading us. Instead of replying to us politely they dictated their terms and tried to prove us foolish, incompetent, emotional, lack of knowledge, notoriously eager etc. I as the father of the subject tried my level best to provide latest/recent development about subject but it was discouraged again and again. Even Yanshui, Ihardlythinkso made fun, insulted the subject at their respective pages. Please Check there user pages to know the same. In fact they all are doing the same in a team. The motive is the user Sudeep Gangal who might have hurted their individuality. Even i have appealed to block him. Further the subject also appealed in section of talk page that he believes in Wikipedia and Sudeep Gangal etc should not try to become his well wishers. But why subject or his father should be punished for same. Respected Wikipedia dignities these editors has not tried their level best to listen to suggestions on new sections of the talk page. They even ignored valid suggestions, concerns, issues on new sections on talk page of the article that too replying in an insulting manner. I am afraid to mention Yanshui sir even mentioned on his talk page about subject whose abstract was I am lazy so accepting subject and might delete later on and even insulted subject that too in a team with Ihardlythinkso. Even subject and Father of the subject were left with no stamina hence appealed to delete article Have you tried to resolve this previously? Respected dignities I and Subject tried our level best to resolve this dispute by following steps. We always put our point with respect. Many times we communicated/begged to them to stop insulting us for god sake. Subject left forever from Wikipedia as per suggestion by NeilN from updating Wikipedia talk page. NeilN even suggested the subject to forget Wikipedia. Subject followed it. Subject even appealed to delete the article but stop it. Even i begged to stop it or delete article. Regards. How do you think we can help? Step 1: Please analyse anything related to the subject in talk page of the article or talk page of people involved in the dispute to know the dispute Step 2: Please do justice to article by taking care of all Sections of Talk page of the article. Step 3: Punish the people involved in the dispute, if they are not following Wikipedia norms. Step 4: If Subject is not worth then please delete it. But if it is notable then editors must understand degrading subject or insulting father is shocking. Summary of dispute by NeilNUnfortunately I don't think this noticeboard can accept this as this is a straight behavioral dispute, not a content dispute. The filer's contributions start here. It is obvious that he is only here to promote his son and does not or will not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If this were the proper venue, I would recommend a topic ban. --NeilN talk to me 10:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by YunshuiI no longer have any interest in pursuing this matter. I have repeatedly tried to help Sarower Sigh Bhati and co. to understand Wikipedia's policies, but it's like banging my head against a brick wall. This was pretty much the last straw. At this point, I see no merit in discussing the matter further, since it is clear that Sarower has no intention of listening to those who are trying to help him. Were I not already involved, I would block his account as a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. However, I've reached the limits of my tolerance here, and wash my hands of the affair; I'm dewatchlisting the page and will not comment here or on the article talkpage again. Yunshui 雲水 10:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by IhardlythinksoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is loaded with false accusations of a personal nature including claims of persecution and degradation to him and the article subject (his disabled son). This editor should be blocked for disruption and ongoing fictionalized personal attacks. Three editors have conducted themselves helpfully and professionally to no avail. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Subject himselfPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ultra respected Authorities of Wikipedia. Yes i agree with my father. But the dispute can not be resolved in a justified manner unless the past track of the article talk page and talk page of all involved in dispute is analyzed properly. Moreover many points, sections are already deleted/edited/modified later on. For example I still remember there were at least 2 sections on the talk pages of Yunshui Sir and Ihardlythinkso Sir, where the remarks were really discouraging/degrading/insulting for me by these people is not existing now. One of the section was " A Difference". A lot of efforts has already taken place to cover the points raised by my father in a well anticipated manner in advance. Even at dispute resolution platform they are united as team (See there statements). Respected Authorities of Wikipedia I appeal to all of you to please analyse this article talk page history verbatim to know the reality. Yes Sirs this is a difficult job but the only way out to sort this dispute is to, " I Request with both my hands folded in front of you all to please analyse each and every word of the talk page of this article. In addition please analyse each and every word of the talk pages of all the people who are involved in this dispute" Then only the dispute resolution will be able to find the people who were wrong. Yes i am sorry today and i said it earlier also for having bit faith in Sudeep gangal for some time but later on i openly stood by Wikipedia editors and asked Sudeep to keep away from it forever. For this NeilN sir appreciated me also. Last but not the least Sirs, Why are we fighting? After All It is your article. Keep it or remove it is choice of Wikipedia editors. But if they have accepted me as a Subject Please do not insult me Please do not insult my father. After all the article is property of Wikipedia and I am its subject. Why we want lose-lose situation. This article is not my fathers property but he is only related with the subject. As far as promoting me, Ask yourself who will not do the same for a disabled son with limited breaths But my father did not promoted me but was assertive as he is sure i am deserving. But agony of a father of a son with such grim medical conditions is also to be handled in a human manner. Finally if Wikipedia is not convinced about me as the subject of article please remove it immediately but please stop making fun of me, degrading me, insulting me. RegardsHridayeshwar Singh Bhati (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Respected All: Yes it is my last message to all of you: I will never LOG IN to Wikipedia nor the subject will ever LOG IN to Wikipedia. As far as dispute is concerned I had already put my points. God Bless All of you. Best Wishes to all of you. Though as far as i know i always respected the individuality of all people by Writing Respected, Ultra respected, before every person but Still i am sorry to those, who got hurt due to me but believe me it was unintentional. Anyway my best wishes for all of you. Finally i am leaving Wikipedia forever along with the Subject of the article. RegardsSarower Sigh Bhati (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Pending in another forum (ANI) and insufficient discussion about the content in question at the article talk page. (The only matter of substance which has been discussed there, and that just barely, is what has been done at other articles and Thomas.W is correct that each article at Wikipedia stands alone unless there is a policy or guideline requiring uniformity.) This noticeboard requires extensive talk page discussion which has come to a standstill before coming here. If that should occur, please feel free to reapply here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview I tried to add the Navy Yard attack to the "See Also" section of the Remington Model 870. This was the primary weapon used. Another editor tried to enter a lot of information but I felt only adding it to the “See Also” was most appropriate as that is how it was done for the JFK weapon and other articles. I feel this is the most neutral way to do this vs not having anything again another that wanted a entire part in the 870 header. This not only keeps it small but the same style done in other articles at Wikipedia.
Posted on the talk page and showed this was done at other articles. How do you think we can help? Offer a outside look. Summary of dispute by ROG5728Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is a frivolous DR by an IP editor who did not even make an attempt to discuss his changes on the talk page. He has already violated 3RR (4 reverts in 24 hours) and succeeded in getting the article locked. The content he's attempting to add to the article is not relevant or noteworthy to the subject. ROG5728 (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Thomas.WPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There has been no discussion on the talk page of the article, only a lot of accusations about uncivility being made by the IP-editor. Including the IP-editor (who uses multiple IPs all leading to the same government agency, including but possibly not limited to 216.81.94.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 216.81.81.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 216.81.81.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), see the ANI-link for the connection between them) filing an ANI-report against me, falsely accusing me of uncivility. So this is just part of the IP-editor's forum shopping, trying to portray himself as some kind of abuse victim. Summary of dispute by DainomitePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Outside opinion of Mark MillerI think there is a possible COI issue with the filing editor. They have also opened an AN/I complaint I believe. Two venues opened almost simultaneously could be seen as forum shopping. The discussion on the talk page is almost all from the IP editor complaining about another editor and not the actual issue at hand. No extensive discussion. Recommend declining this request.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Talk:Remington Model_870#Washington_Navy_Yard_Massacre discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview A new editor, Scoobydunk, disputes the view that John Casor was the first legal slave in the British colonies and that his owner Anthony Johnson was thus the first slave owner. He supports that Indentured servitude for life is slavery which makes John Punch the first slave and Hugh Gwyn the first slave owner. Scoobydunk has deleted text pointing out that Indentured servitude for life was not uncommon in the colonies and other related text that does not support his view. I added seven sources, books written by authors with history degrees, to the specific claim. Scoobydunk deleted the claim while leaving the references.[16] Have you tried to resolve this previously? I discussed the problem on the Talk page.[17] and added at least 15 academic sources to the article supporting the original text. An uninvolved editor also explained the difference between servitude and slavery to Scoobydunk which was rejected. How do you think we can help? Add input from uninvolved editors in a noticeboard environment. Summary of dispute by ScoobydunkPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Historians confirm that John Punch was the first legally recognized slave. I gave WLRoss a number of sources that prove Punch was sentenced to life in servitude thus making him the first legally recognized slave in 1641. WLRoss violated WP:OR policy and tried to claim Punch wasn't a slave but an indentured servant and provided no source that made this distinction, it was purely his own opinion. The Punch case predates the Johnson v. Parker trial of 1654 which legally recognized Casor as a slave. I've given a number of sources in the talk page to substantiate this claim. WLRoss basically said that all of my sources were "wrong" because he disagrees with what qualifies an indentured servant vs. a slave, which is not his decision to make. Regardless of what his opinion is, historians regard Punch as the first legal slave in the English colonies because his case predates Casor's by 13 years. Thus, Hugh Gwyn was the first slave owner, not Anthony Johnson. WLRoss wants the article to read that Anthony Johnson was "the first slave owner in the mainland colonies." This is wrong for a number of reasons. Spain had slaves dating back to 1560 in their colony. Massachusetts legalized slavery in 1641 and even the official state website says this. Connecticut legalized slavery in 1650. John Punch was sentenced to life long slavery for trying to runaway in 1641,Virginia. So to make a claim that Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner is wrong for a variety of reasons and ignores many legal documents and court cases. I edited the claim to say "he was the first legally recognized slave owner in the English colonies to hold a servant for life where crime was not involved." This wording accommodates all of the information that was presented in the talk page. If you remove any of the qualifiers, then it becomes a false statement. WLRoss violates WP:POV by ignoring what has been factually recognized by numerous reliable sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Anthony Johnson (colonist) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Wayne's six sources do not meet reliable source requirements. Two of the works are books intended for juveniles (11 and up) and two are written by generalists who are not specialists in either slavery, African Americans, or American colonial history. One is a WPA work written during the Depression by unnamed authors, and the final one does not support Wayne's overly broad claims -- in fact it supports Scoobydunk. In the interest of brevity, I have listed the specifics, with appropriate links, at Talk:Anthony Johnson (colonist)#Dispute Resolution.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
|