Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 100
This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 95 | ← | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | → | Archive 105 |
Talk:GamerGate
Discussion died out, and no editors showed an interest in closing. The issues are too complex for DR/N. Suggest a more official venue. KJ Discuss? 10:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The central issue in this dispute revolves around WP:BLP, and WP:RS when one side of a dispute (The media) is attacking the other side; who is claiming that the media is corrupt. One side of the issue (the media and some notable people) are claiming that the WHOLE issue is mysogony and harassment while the other is claiming that this is about journalism ethics. On the talk page several users are insisting that little to no mention of ethics should be included and that per the sources the whole thing should be about mysogony and sexual harassment etc. The other side is claiming that, while harassment has happened; the issue is about the reliability and COI of the sources used. The talk page is littered with threads discussing the issue with SOME editors becoming very uncivil (claims of mysogony on the part of editors) when neutrality is brought up. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have discussed the issue on the talk page and then attempted to start a RFC (which was quickly shut down before any non-involved editor could comment) How do you think we can help? Bringing the discussion to a board to make sure people keep a level head, preventing the talk page from being clogged up and also preventing users from dis-engaging from the discussion because they disagree Summary of dispute by PseudoSomethingI think the big problem with this article is the common voice vs the media. It is a very weird problem, where there is no head of the GamerGate movement, but we can see the targets of the 'Media corruption' writing articles that label this as Misogyny. Sadly, some of the articles used are biased (which isn't a bad thing), but some of them also have authors who have thrown extreme insults at the Pro-GG side (The Time Author), or have funded someone in the middle of the controversy (The New Yorker Author), and a few other problematic articles. While the Pro-GG side also will have biased articles, there are plenty of sources(Forbes, Slate, and many other sites) that I and others have rounded up and presented that fully show what caused the movement, what the movement is looking for (or at least the main points, since there is no head of the movement), and what has happened. We also have tangible results, such as ethics policy changes with Defy Media (The Escapist Magazine Owners), Destructoid, and Kotaku, as well as TFYC (a game jam for women) getting fully funded, while many of the anti_GG articles focus on the narrative of one person, many times over. Yet, all of these sources are being ignored, as you can tell. While many sources presented show the movement is about Journalism ethics and other things, many people on the talk page still push the Misogyny side. By this I mean people saying "We are playing right into their narrative", people who are passionate and say things like "The massive quantity of libel and rage that this movement has generated. GamerGate got a few minor sites to try pacify them, and screwed up a whole lot of women's lives for absolutely no reason. That's the effect of your movement", and others just telling anyone trying to present evidence and articles for the Pro-GG side to "Shut Up". I honestly believe that the article currently is portraying wrong information over GamerGate, and it will be an issue that will persist because of the amount of people pushing the 'Hatred of Women' position. I honestly don't know a good remedy, since the sources have been brought and nothing has changed. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by MasemPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It's not an issue WP can deal with. When you have one side (the proGG side) that is fragmented without a clear voice, and where a few have opted to harass and attack other people, no reputable media is going to find sympathy in that. As such, all reliably-sourced articles on GamerGate (such as the New Yorker, the Washington Post, the Telegraph) all have to start that GG arose from what appears to be a misogyny-driven attack on specific game devs. That said, several also try to get into the more rational side of the proGG side, explaining their position of wanting journalistic integrity and other reasonable points of discussion. So the article should (and does, presently) go into the idea about these other reasons, that they've been boiling in the game fandom for years, and with the combination of the attacks on the game devs and the media response, is trying to be pushed out with a louder voice. The media just have not fully seen that voice, again due to the fractured nature of the proGG aspect and the fact that there are still people harassing the various targets of this. We can cover it, we cannot take the position that GG is 100% about misogynist harassment, but we also cannot hide that fact or bury it in the weaker claims about the other facets the proGG side want to cover. I beliee the article in its present lock-downed position attempts to make this argument properly without trying to skew what actually happen, irregardless how ugly it was. --MASEM (t) 06:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by RyulongMasem hits the nail on the head. It is not the fault of the users reported here that the sources for the subject only tell what Retartist (and other pro-GamerGate editors that have been disrupting the talk page) define as one side of the debate because that's all that's out there for the topic and the other point of view desired in the article cannot be found in what Wikipedia deems as reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by NorthBySouthBaranofPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is quite simply an issue where the reliable sources are effectively unanimous in saying something. Given that fact, we are required by policy to present that as the predominant viewpoint in the encyclopedia. The above user, and others, have complained that literally every mainstream media source from Time to the Washington Post to NPR's Marketplace is somehow "biased" and unusable, and would have us use YouTube videos, dubious gaming blogs and Photoshopped screenshots instead. This we cannot do, obviously. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by TheRedPenOfDoomPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Dispute resolution by the named parties will be useless as the flood of new SPAs will continue to come in who, like the filer, are oblivious (and hostile) to the understanding of WP:UNDUE that we need to present the subject as the mainstream reliable sources see it, not as gamergaters wish it to be perceived. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by TitaniumDragonuser:NorthBySouthBaranof, user:Ryulong, and user:Tarc have been involved in a long campaign of intimidation and POV pushing on this article and Zoe Quinn. user:TheRedPenOfDoom is a more recent entrant. Unfortunately, Masem is simply incorrect; I have repeatedly cited reliable sources which state otherwise. The Bright Side of News, Forbes, Digitimes, The Telegraph, and others which note that claims that the whole dispute about misogyny is, in fact, a straw man argument set forth by Zoe Quinn and her supporters, and that the actual issues are many and varied, but primarily have to do with gamers feeling bullied and insulted, and feeling that the gaming media is corrupt, and that they are being censored. Indeed, there is presently a DDOS attack going on against one of the participants, as well as an organized campaign of censorship by some of the journalists involved, including at Kotaku. One of the major mainstream articles written on the subject matter, in Time magazine, was written by someone who worked for Kotaku and had a conflict of interest, and indeed was targeted by the campaign because she was involved in both video games journalism and PR for video game developers, which is a conflict of interest for obvious reasons. The article in The New Yorker shows no signs of fact checking, and seems to be entirely reliant on a single, involved source - Zoe Quinn - for its information. And indeed, this is a common issue; there are articles which take a more detached view of it and there are articles which are advocating very strongly for Zoe Quinn and don't show much, if any, sign of fact checking, frequently repeating false or erroneous claims sourced to Quinn herself. Given the entire scandal started because of Zoe Quinn's press contacts, obviously there are some WP:RS issues here, as well as some issues with systemic bias; even still, though, there are plenty of articles which note the GamerGate supporters' point of view. Zoe Quinn's point of view - and the harassment - are indeed major issues, and need to be discussed in the article. However, as-is, it does not present "the other side" (or really, sides) at all. It is unacceptably biased and gives a massive amount of space to Zoe Quinn's point of view and issues of harassment of Zoe Quinn and her supporters, when she and her supporters have been involved in the same, as noted in RSs, as well as the censorship and attempted censorship of the issue, which has again been noted in RSs. As there are a number of RSs which present a much more neutral point of view on the issue, we should be using those, and we need to avoid giving WP:UNDUE notice to Zoe Quinn - contrary to her claims, it isn't all about her, and several sites have actually changed their ethics policies as a result of the scandal. Several of the users involved have referred to anyone who disagrees with them in a derogatory fashion, with Ryulong describing them as virgins, Tarc calling them misogynists, and TRPOD repeatedly closing discussions and claiming consensus and insulting other users with claims that they are POV pushing, as well as threatening users with bans in order to intimidate them, something they have been called on before by @Tom991:. This behavior is habitual in some cases. I just became aware of this because I was going through and looking for instances of past behavior for a potential ANI; I found this because, ironically, the notice had been deleted. user:Ryulong and user:Masem both deleted my attempts at adding the NPOV tag to the article, despite having already commented here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Diego MoyaIt is undeniable that the majority of the reliable sources have linked the attacks to misogyny, and the totality of them have covered the harassment angle. Still, we are not doing our best in the way we're using them to write the article, and the outcome is nothing to be proud of - certainly not the best we can achieve. There is lots of work to do to create an article that can be read by a reasonable reader from either side of the conflict and conclude that it's written in a fair way, but it will need the collaboration from everybody involved without constantly second-guessing the motives of editors at the other side. Defenders of the Reliable Sources (that's DRS'ers for you) need to stop treating them as Gospel and recognize that they're written by fallible human beings, and thus everything written in them must be subject to scrutiny before -or even after- accepting them in the article; this means you must stop criticizing editors who want to put the references through such scrutiny. Those defending the GamerGate (GG'ers) side while trying in good faith to improve the article, must understand that Wikipedia is primarily a record of information available in mainstream sources which have been producing reliable content before the incident started, so it's natural that some angles and points of view get excluded, until people whose criteria we can trust adopt those points of view; this means that some aspects of the incident will be excluded because of our editorial line. (Those in bad faith can go read Encyclopedia Dramatica, where they will find a version covering all the "silenced facts" so it should be much more to their liking - or not?). The idea that "we can't help having a biased article if all the reliable sources are biased" is, pardon me, bullshit. The problem is not merely for lack of sources, but how they're used to imply that what is included in the sources is WP:THE TRUTH. There's too much Truth-pushing at both sides, though fortunately there's also a few voices calling for keeping a level head. We know we shouldn't represent the views of external sources as ours, yet that's how many try to present them - and I mean people from both sides. We must all perform an exercise in self assessment and reflect whether we're engaging in constructive debate with proper mood and tone, including myself. We proud ourselves that Wikipedia content represents the view from reliable sources have written without engaging in the controversies themselves. So let's write an article that represents the view from reliable sources but doesn't adopt them as Wikipedia's voice, but as the documentary record of what those sources have said, registered in a clinically detached tone. Diego (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by KaldariNow that the GamerGate hordes have been kicked off of Reddit, 4chan, and everywhere else, they have descended on the one place that will take 6 months to decide to get rid of them: Wikipedia. Right now, there is a strong push by several tendentious SPAs and numerous anon IPs to completely whitewash the GamerGate article. They would like the harassment aspects to be downplayed or removed and the original (though discredited) ethics accusations put front and center. Unfortunately, the reliable sources do not support their POV, so instead they are claiming that the media itself is biased and should be largely ignored. Titanium Dragon and Retardist have been especially tendentious, opening thread after thread on the talk page with the same essential arguments. Titanium Dragon was one of the main original authors of the article and its main defender at AfD. At the time, the article was basically a Zoe Quinn assassination-piece. When the media started debunking the claims against Zoe Quinn and focusing on the harassment campaign, Titanium Dragon suddenly decided that recentism was an important policy and argued against including mention of harassment in the lead. Now that it is clear that the controversy is primarily about harassment, Titanium Dragon, Retartist, and others are determined to whitewash the article through exhaustive arguing, since the policies don't support their POV-pushing. Kaldari (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Talk:GamerGate discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello, User:PseudoSomething, User:Masem, User:Ryulong, User:NorthBySouthBaranof, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, User:Diego Moya, and User:Kaldari. I am a volunteer here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I have read the talk page discussion and the individual summaries of dispute; since all users have made their comments, I will be opening this case. Before beginning the discussion, there are a couple of things to note. Firstly, volunteers here have no special powers and abilities to enforce a particular course of action. We are aiming to establish an agreeable consensus. Secondly, please respect all parties involved and assume good faith. Thirdly, the DR/N is not a place to discuss user conduct. Issues concerning user conduct, including accusations of pushing a particular POV, should be taken elsewhere. Please also be noted that User:Titanium Dragon has been indefinitely banned from the topic, and will not be able to participate in this discussion. With this noted, let us move onto the discussion. I think there are two crux to this debate, the reliability of sources and due weight for the viewpoints. Feel free to point it out if I'm mistaken. Since due weight can only be judged after determining reliable sources, I wish to start with the first point. I am under the impression that the sources are being questioned about the second and third criterion of WP:SOURCE (Second being the reliability of the creator, the third being about the publisher of the work). Whether the sources themselves are WP:BIASED or not seems to be outside the scope of this discussion, as that will fall under due weight; the only question is whether the facts attributed to the sources are reliable and can be used. Please discuss below. KJ Discuss? 04:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi KJ. Basically what we have going on is a common voice vs a media controversy. The controversy started with a hashtag called #gamergate that has differing stories of how it came about. On the Gamergate side, we have sources such as Forbes, Slate, digitimes (A pure outsider source), Vox, Townhall, and Aljazeera, to name a few since I would want to site them all, who say that gamergate is about gamers wanting higher ethics and less corruption in gaming journalism, as well as a few stating they want less political push. Most of these sources are currently being shoved aside. The other side of the coin is the media saying that gamergate is a harrassment campaign focused on sexism and misogyny, mostly taking the work of one currently high profile person. For the side of the coin that is fighting for ethics, we can see actual results that are being brushed aside in in sentence, which is that the sites Polygon and Kotaku changed their ethics policies, as well as Defy Media (owners of the Espcaist) and Destructoid also reviewing and changing their policies. Now, to focus on your statement of "whether the facts attributed to the sources are reliable and can be used", I believe many of the harassment/misogyny ones fall under the problem of taking the word of one currently high profile person with very little backing up her statements, instead of look at the results drive ethics and corruption side. To back up the extremely unreliable sources though, is to look at the Times article and the New Yorker Article. The Times writer wrote an article also on Gamasutra, and spit out a very nasty, curse filled insult at anyone who supported #gamergate. The New Yorker writer had been funding someone who was a journalist in the thick of the mess, and as soon as the article was published, he immediately hid his Patreon, to hide the fact. To add to this (and it is much more speculative than concrete), is that many gaming journalism sites would not cover the ethics and corruption story, only to focus on harassment, which was shown in some leaked emails from a gaming journalism email list. Then we have what companies own what, but that is all up in the air. Now to add onto fact checking, which is what Diego touched on, is that again, many sources rely on one person's word for the whole issue. They do not take into account what is happening on twitter, prominent discussion forums, or results from the movement such as policy changes. These are all -easily- looked at, yet are not reported on to keep the issue skewed to one side. That is the big problem with this article, is that it is ignoring any pro-gamergate articles and only focusing on negative gamergate articles (look at the last edits, any negative ones are allowed, positive are always reverted), and the article in no way follows the very well written essay at WP:CONTROVERSY. (Forgive me if I reference anything I shouldn't, still learning some of the guidelines. Also, my sources a few days old, and I have not looked for newer sources, since I have tried to stay away until the DNR because of anxiety and work).PseudoSomething (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I've just come back from a break- there seems to be a lot happening and ill need to catch up. But why in the article is there an excessively long section on "the misogyny"? seems a little excessive... Retartist (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's important to look at what has been removed because of BLP reasons. Most of them have been appropriate, but remember that it's possible to game this - using "removed per WP:BLP" as a trump card in a content dispute to remove information inconvenient to your point-of-view. I was surprised to see so many deletions even from the talk page, maybe I just don't know enough about the topic but not all of them seemed controversial or like serious allegations. The BLP bar should be lower on the talk page - so it's possible to discuss different sources and whether they comply with policies. Let's keep the bad sources at bay, but remember that we are detailing a controversy - not everything on the other side of the controversy can be thought as BLP-removable allegations. --Pudeo' 22:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Reliability of sourcesBefore continuing, let's talk about the reliability of the sources being used. There appears to be a consensus that published sources in the 'mainstream' media can be used to describe all the facts in this case. Unreliable sources are, well, unreliable and cannot be used to attribute assertions. Both sides have been described in the mainstream media, albeit with different due weight. Is this agreeable? If there is a consensus about the reliability of the sources, we will move on to discuss due weight in the article. Please answer in the scope of this question. KJ Discuss? 22:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, so can we agree that we can only use the mainstream sources? KJ Discuss? 02:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Discussion of Individual SourcesBackground Note: Past issues of reliability and Zoe Quinn Something of a background note for the unaware, which is pertinent as it is part of the origins of this whole debacle as well as some past issues with reliability and single source stories. The Escapist In late 2013, The Escapist ran an article which repeated Zoe Quinn's claims that she had been harassed by members of WizardChan, an imageboard for depressed people. The Escapist ended up altering the story a bit and adding a disclaimer to it after they revised their ethics standards as a direct result of the article; previously, they had simply repeated the claims of anyone who claimed to have been harassed, but now they require that any such article be better researched. As a result of the original article, the folks on WizardChan were themselves subjected to harassment by Zoe Quinn's supporters, and they were given no opportunity to defend themselves in the article, while the sole source of the claims was Zoe Quinn herself. The Escapist apologized for the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm back from a wiki/irl break, going to get up to speed (been away from internet) Retartist (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Closing noticeDRN is self described as "an informal place to resolve small content disputes" [bold added]. This case was filed 19 days ago and was opened 14 days ago. During this period there has been approx. 15,000 words of summary and discussion. That does not seem to align with the stated purpose and parameters of this forum. In addition the case moderator User:Kkj11210 has not participated in 8 days. Unless the moderator returns, I will close this case within 24 to 48 hrs as unresolved and refer it to WP:MEDIATION. Before I do that are there any conclusions or partial resolutions that can be summarized and formalized before then, so that this extensive discussion will not have been in vain?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I also agree that this case would need to be moderated in a more official setting that deals with a bigger scope. In 24 hours, I will close this discussion if there are no objections. User:PseudoSomething, User:Masem, User:Ryulong, User:NorthBySouthBaranof,User:TheRedPenOfDoom, User:Diego Moya, User:Kaldari, and User:Titanium Dragon, you are free to raise objections and make final statements on this issue. KJ Discuss? 04:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
|
War of the Pacific
After significant and prolonged discussion the participants were not able to agree on a compromise. — Keithbob • Talk • 17:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, We have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Was the 14 February 1879 the beginning of the War of the Pacific or another date in a chain of pivotal dates in the road to war? Have you tried to resolve this previously? A RfC failed to find a solution: Talk:War of the Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879? How do you think we can help? To find an adequate wording for the lede Summary of dispute by KeysangerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The closer of the RfC states: There are WP:RS on both sides here, and people working in good faith can come to the opposite conclusion as to which the the right answer is. The Context matters bit is important however, and some of the sources are certainly less reliable for historical analysis than others.[8] Therefore I think that Darkness Shines's sentence The War of the Pacific started on February 14, 1879 doesn't meet the WP rules for neutrality. I proposed:
Both proposals have been reverted by DS, those only proposal has been The War of the Pacific started on February 14, 1879. There is no mention of any other dates or sources. I ask DS to make a proposal considering the other sources that have analysed the significance of the 14 February (Sater, Farcau, and Pike). --Keysanger (Talk) 09:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Darkness ShinesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Sorry, I have been very busy the last few weeks, and I am currently very ill. I will try and make a statement within a few days. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Right, the RFC did have a solution, and that was the edits I had made were fine. And the arguing over the sources was plain old wiki lawyering. However I am happy to change the current content to "the war began on February 14, 1879 with the Chilean landing of troops and capture of the port city of Antofagasta,[1][2] On 20 February Daza learned that Chilean forces had occupied Antofagasta, and requested aid from Peru based on the secret alliance between the two nations, following this on 1 March Bolivia issued a formal declaration of war against Chile"[3]
This seems a reasonable compromise to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Eduardo Eddy RamirezPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 210.50.245.62Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
WP:Talk:War of the Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879? discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Administrative note: I've notified User:Darkness Shines about this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC) I've also added and notified two other users who were involved in the dispute on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC) PS I'm not opening this case, just trying to help get it ready for another volunteer to take and moderate.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Suggestions for CompromiseThis case is now open. [Let's discuss one sentence at a time] One proposal is to change current content to:
Another proposal is to change the current content to this:
Can we find some common ground between the two?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Nay. I can't go with that proposal. @DS: why don't you consider the other sources, for example, Willian Sater, emeritus professor of history at California State University-Long Beach?. He has written the probably most detailed book about the war. Please, take a look to Andean Tragedy. He states in page 28: Only on 5 April did Santiago reciprocate, plunging South America's west coast into what became known as the War of the Pacific, a conflict that lasted until 1884. If you unconditionally insist to say that some authors set the begin on 14/F, I would accept it under the condition that the same sentence states that other authors set it to different dates. --Keysanger (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia distinguishes between primary and secondary sources. The passage you present is a primary source: The author, William Sater, states that "Daza declared that Chile imposed ...he announced ...". Take a look to "he declared" and "he announced". It is HE, Daza, the Bolivian dictator and not Sater, the historian. Wikipedia doesn't accept primary sources because they can reflect the interest of the author at that time to influence the events. The part of the sentence I transcribed is a secondary source. The author, William Sater, states that in his own opinion the war started "only" on 5 April. Wikipedia demands the use of only secondary sources. Regarding your question that war had already been declared, you are confusing the 14 February with 18 March, the day Bolivia declared war on Chile. We are talking here about the 14. February. So, on 14 February and much more later there was no war according to your cite. Please, let me know if you don't understand my rationale. --Keysanger (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Core of dispute for this sentenceFirst, stop addressing and referencing each other and personalizing the discussion. We are here to discuss text and sources only not people and their alleged deeds or motives. Now.....Let's see if we can find some common ground here. The two sentences are not that far apart:
The "landing of troops and capture of" is the same thing as "armed forces occupied". So the dispute seems to be over the first three words:
So the core of the dispute for this sentence is over the characterization of the occupation/capture as a either a war or a crisis. Correct?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Sources regarding occupation of AntofagastaOK, good, let's compile the sources and see what they say. Could the two of you please list the sources that you feel pertain to the issue of whether or not the occupation of Antofagasta was the start of the war or a precursor to it. Please list the source, a URL if possible, and a quote from the source. If you have already given them above then could you please copy and paste them here so we can see them all together side by side. Then we can examine and discuss the language of each source and see if some agreeable wording is possible based on what the sources say. Thanks! :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Darkness Shines you had previously cited these two sources (see below) to support your contention that the war actually began on Feb 14, 1879. Are there any additional sources you would like us to consider?
CompromiseLook, I have given a compromise edit, that compromise was based on comments made during the RFC, and as current consensus is that my edit stands I would recommend KS either accept my compromise, or add a bit to it. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
|
Dave Cortese
No extensive talk page discussion as required by this and all other forms of moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This is a biographical page for a politician currently engaged in a November election. Edits have been done seemingly on behalf of the campaign that clearly repeatedly violate WP:BLPSPS. I've reverted them as such and made some other changes to make it adhere to Wikipedia policies. I'm apparently being accused of bias because I'm also an elected official (not involved in that race, although I've endorsed the other guy). Having someone neutral review the edits would be a good thing. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've added an explanation of my edits to the Talk page How do you think we can help? Have someone neutral weigh in before this gets blown up. Summary of dispute by WriterjfPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Dave Cortese discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
My concern for the edits involve both the content and the cites. Standard Wikipedia policy is that the subject of a living biography cannot be the reference for material that exists on the page. The edits that were being added, and which the author clearly feels are still valid, included the verbatim text from two of the subject's election ballot statements, and cites consisting of the subject's campaign website and the subject's LinkedIn page. All of those are, at least ostensibly, self-written. I whacked the verbatim ballot statements. I changed the linkedIn and campaign reference cites to a news article on the subject. I also reworded some of the family history because it echoed material on another page, and that page is already linked to. Ballot statements are clearly self-serving in nature and probably inappropriate. The rest of the facts appear to be accurate, just cited with invalid sources. I'm still concerned that some of the material that remains may be inappropriate. But it's close enough to being appropriate that I'm not comfortable addressing it myself, and I'd prefer someone more neutral to weigh in. This is a hotly-contested election, and while it doesn't directly involve me, and I'm not in the election's jurisdiction, the original author clearly doesn't believe my contributions are neutral. Note that I don't think we're anywhere near the point of having the page be locked down. I think neutral input is all that's needed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGriffithSV (talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
|
Talk:Osgoode Hall_Law_School
Illicit request: Block evasion through sockpuppetry of indefinitely blocked account. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Large segments of this page have been removed by claiming there is inadequate citation. If I add a citation then another reason is brought up to remove something. Additionally, there are claims that additions are not notable and for this reason continue to be removed. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried adding citations in the said articles I was linking to the page and voiced my opinion that some justifications were subjective. I had long ago proposed a neutral 3rd party resolution so as not to keep going back and forth with reversions. How do you think we can help? If someone who is neutral can address whether or not the pairing down of this page and consistent removal of three of the entries is warranted or not then at least we can proceed in the process toward achieving consensus. I am also curious as to why some things had been removed but their removal had not shown up in the page's history. Summary of dispute by MetersPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TRPoDthis can probably be closed as the filer has been blocked indeff for sockpuppetry. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Talk:Osgoode Hall_Law_School discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Zone 5 Military Museum, Danang
Policy and guidelines clearly indicate that a category cannot be included unless supported by verifiable information in the text of the article. No such verified information exists here so the category is clearly inappropriate at the present time. See my opinion, below, for additional discussion and detail. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I am having a dispute with User:HCPUNXKID on the categorisation of Zone 5 Military Museum, Danang as Communist Propaganda. I have listed out numerous examples of the museum's POV captions on the Talk Page, however User:HCPUNXKID argues that the terminology on captions means nothing and that I have to give "serious proof" to justify the category. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None How do you think we can help? Provide a view on the necessary proof/threshold for categorisation Summary of dispute by HCPUNXKIDFirst I would like to thank User:Mztourist for taking the issue here. While he claims that the captions used in the museum (captions wich cannot be verified, as they arent visible in the photos he uploaded) use terminology like "mercenaries" or "puppet", that clearly aint a proof of "Communist propaganda", "Nationalist propaganda" or any other type, not compared with the other articles included in that category. Most if not all military museums in the world try to depreciate the enemy, via claims, terminology, etc...I'm still looking for a military museum in wich the own forces and their enemies are presented at the same level. Above all, I consider that its exaggerate to label a whole museum (or even all the museums in Vietnam, as he claimed in the article's talk page) as "Communist propaganda", moreover (as User:NorthBySouthBaranof points) when there is no external reliable source supporting that claim. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 15:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by NorthBySouthBaranofPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
As a previously-uninvolved editor, I think this is a pretty simple issue. If we don't have a reliable source for the contentious and indisputably-negative statement that something is "Communist propaganda," we can't label something with that statement. WP:V is pretty clear, and without a source, the label is textbook original research. Moreover, even if one source calls it "Communist propaganda," that does not necessarily constitute a consensus of sources that it is "Communist propaganda." Before we label something in such a negative fashion, we need to take a serious look at what the reliable sources really say about the museum. A dearth of sources does not and cannot justify one editor categorizing the article based on their personal opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by CannolisPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Pretty much agree with NorthBySouthBaranof. If the captions provided by Mztourist are real, they are pretty wonky, but it's not our place to call them or the museum anything, we go by what RS say. Cannolis (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Talk:Zone 5 Military Museum, Danang discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I'm a regular volunteer here (and the current coordinator). I am going to render a neutral opinion — and please bear in mind that's all it is: an opinion, not a judgment or ruling — and then close this case. I do not believe that the category "Communist propaganda" should be included at this article at this time. The controlling rule for categories in articles is given in the Articles subsection of the Categorization guideline which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." (Emphasis added.) At the present time there is no verifiable information in the article establishing that this museum, or most of the information contained in it, is communist propaganda and the category should not be included for that reason. (Contrast War Remnants Museum another Vietnam museum which does have the category, but which also has a section in which sources, at least one of which is clearly a reliable source, are cited discussing the propagandist nature of the museum.) Until such verifiable information is added to the text of this Zone 5 article, inclusion of the category is inappropriate. It should be noted that, if I may try to anticipate an argument, the museum itself or the captions on exhibits in the museum cannot be used as PRIMARY sources to include such a section in the article since PRIMARY says, as policy, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." (Emphasis as in original.) The captions say what they say, but to interpret them as propaganda, much less to analyze them as a group or whole to show a systemic bias towards propaganda, would clearly violate PRIMARY. Just as in War Remnants Museum if the article is to discuss propaganda, and thus allow the inclusion of the category, a secondary reliable source must be found. I believe that this result is clearly established by guidelines and policy and that there is little room for further discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
|
Talk:Sukkot#Another .22source.22_removed
This noticeboard, like all forms of moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia, requires extensive discussion at a talk page before requesting dispute resolution. The listing editor has made only one edit at the article talk page about this particular dispute, which cannot be considered to be "extensive." Let me suggest that the listing editor might seek advice on this matter at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This edit http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/high-holy-days-2014/high-holy-day-news-and-features/.premium-1.619440 has been removed on the grounds that The article fails WP:V since it is accessible only to subscribers. The source itself is an online newspaper, known to be leftist, hardly a WP:RS for the origins of religious traditions. The article makes non-mainstream claims, admitting that they are speculative. The writer is a popularizer at most, whose credentials are unclear. As can be seen on this list of his recent articles he makes large claims, giving the impression his articles are more about sensation than academic reliability. The first claim has now been withdrawn. I have argued that this is an RS. The newspaper is perfectly acceptable and the writer's other articles if they are indeed relevant, do not justify the term sensational. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussed on talk page. How do you think we can help? A simple decision is required to establish if this is an RS. Summary of dispute by DebresserPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Sukkot#Another .22source.22_removed discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Carl Demaio
Conduct matter/wrong venue. As currently formed, this is a conduct/behavioral matter. This noticeboard does not handle matters which are conduct matters (see the header). For conduct matters consider RFC/U, AN, ANI, or for analysis and advice on conflict of interest, WP:COIN. You may also refile here, but please wholly focus on content issues, avoid raising conduct or behavioral issues, and realize that conduct issues will not be discussed as part of any dispute resolution done here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview There's an extremely notable issue in a congressional candidate's campaign, involving what are I believe to be credible issues of sexual harassment and bribery. CFredkin has a persistent pattern of editing articles of those involved in high profile, competitive, mostly federal elections, removing negative information about mostly conservative candidates (probably exclusively Republicans) and adding positive information about them, while doing the opposite with progressive or centrist Democrats or independents. Of 3,700 or so edits in 18 months or so since first posting, well over 90% of this editor's edits have been to this end. Most of the remainder have been on high profile issues, some unfamiliar to me. This editor is thoroughly familiar with Wikipedia policy, using that familiarity to great advantage in regular disputes. I don't have similar skills. I think this is the first time I've ever referred a matter to a noticeboard. I confess that Wikipedia is a small part of my life but an extremely important asset in the fund of information necessary to the task of being a good citizen of any political persuasion in the U.S. and other countries. Millions depend on it. In addition, I think that a comprehensive and free source of information on a wide variety of topics is also an incredible resource at this time in history. A review of my edits will demonstrate that I post on a broad range of subjects. I find myself distracted from my many tasks when I encounter this editor's intensity and prodigious partisan postings, but I think it's important that neutral observers assess this situation since it has affected so many users. A large proportion of them seem to be upset with this editor's persistence in forwarding a narrow and often what I believe to be a deceptive agenda, but their conflicts, disagreements or simple differences of opinion, seem to wear them down. I'd hope an analysis can be developed, possibly using strong circumstantial evidence, to ban this user. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have provided extensive, comprehensively sourced, and what I believe are well-edited additions to the Carl DeMaio and that article's TALK page. CFredkin has done wholesale reverts to my edits which have the effect of sanitizing the recent history of the subject of the page, a candidate in November's general election in California. I have seen this behavior replicated with a substantial number of other users and the editor's additions, deletions and reverts have been discussed extensively. How do you think we can help? I would hope one or more dispassionate and objective observers would look, not only at the two pages in question, but at much broader, persistent behavior on the part of this editor who seems to be replicating this behavior on many similar current candidates' pages. I think a review of CFredkin's history for the past 18 months would also be productive. Two reasons disturb me. CFredkin seems to justify edits using similar arguments for or against different subjects. I suspect an extreme COI. Summary of dispute by Champaign_SupernovaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MelanieNPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by trackinfoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Carl Demaio discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Wind power#Recent edit EU garbage
Sending back to the talk page for further discussion now that I've made some comments there better defining the dispute. Arguably there has been insufficient discussion up until this point, as well, since the discussion was mostly about the question of whether the OR policy applies to talk pages, which is something of a rabbit trail. Finally, additional editors have weighed in there who need to be included here if this gets refiled (which it can be if additional discussion does not solve the problem). — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview There is an ongoing argument about a Wind power analysis, between me and another user who is saying that the content I added was false and inaccurate. Even though I have provided verifiable,reliable sources with my edits he doesn't even agree with the sources. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Used lots of Wikipedia policies to justify my edits. How do you think we can help? By providing a skilled editor who is familiar with most of Wikipedia policies. Summary of dispute by GravuritasPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Wind power#Recent edit EU garbage discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Teleprompter
Wrong venue. The place to discuss and formulate responses to broad issues of concern to the Wikipedia community is at the Village Pump or the talk page of the appropriate policy or guideline, following the instructions at POLICY. On the other hand, disruptive or suppressive behavior by an editor — which is not to agree or disagree that such has happened here, but merely to recognize the allegation — is a conduct matter and DRN does not handle conduct matters; consider RFCU, AN, or ANI for conduct matters. In the alternative feel free to refile here and limit your requests to how we might help with any content dispute which you may have, consider filing a Request for comments at the article talk page to try to bring other editors into the discussion, or consider asking for a Third Opinion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview In the "History" section of the article Teleprompter, there's an ongoing dispute over whether or not to place material mentioning President Barack Obama's use of the teleprompter, which is documented by a neutral source article, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19663.html "The TelePrompter: Obama's Safety Net", written by politico.com's White House correspondent Carol E. Lee. Ms. Lee's article states "Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual — not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small. After the teleprompter malfunctioned a few times last summer and Obama delivered some less-than-soaring speeches, reports surfaced that he was training to wean himself off of the device while on vacation in Hawaii. But no such luck." I also referred to http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/1b43o1/obama-speaks-to-a-sixth-grade-classroom, "Obama Speaks to a Sixth Grade Classroom," a monologue by Jon Stewart, host of the The Daily Show in which actual footage of Mr. Obama reading a speech to students in a classroom from a portable teleprompter is shown behind Mr. Stewart's desk while Mr. Stewart delivers his monologue on the comic aspects of Mr. Obama's use of the teleprompter. This documents the change during the teleprompter's history from its utility during major political speeches to its becoming a portable, indispensable aid to the current President to delivering public addresses in fora ranging from the State of the Union Address to meetings of a relatively few Administration officials, down to classroom visits. This is a noteworthy change in the utility and the actual use of the teleprompter, and that even commentators who like President Obama are amused by it - this has become a comic meme. My edits documenting this were reverted twice by Wikidemon, who accused me of edit-warring and not discussing my edits on the talk page, both false statements. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've made the statements above and others, some alluding to prior conflicts with Wikidemon in which he not only reverted my edits, but falsely accused me of making edits on Christmas Eve to avoid other editors' attention, to show a pattern of conduct on wikidemon's part. I've explained my position, that this isn't a partisan shot at the President, but documentation of the evolving role of the teleprompter. I also revised my edits for length and deleted material not strictly germane to the history of the teleprompter. This didn't do any good, he reverted my second edit as well. How do you think we can help? I hope that light can be thrown on this dispute to make an on-going problem more widely known to the wikipedia community. Politically-themed deletion and reversion of edits is an ongoing problem throughout wikipedia. It needs to be discussed here in the editing community and correctives for the problem developed. I am not trying to do politics here, just make the article better - it won't help the utility of wikipedia if pervasive phenomena such as Mr. Obama's teleprompter use are suppressed. Summary of dispute by WikidemonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Teleprompter discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
natural numbers
Futile, as primary opponents see this as a conduct issue. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview This is in my area of study and I noticed a couple of small shortcommings to the article, no matter how small my edits were deleted. Sooo I went to the library and researched the issues to get some solid references. Indeed I did learn a lot in that exercise. Though my edits were deleted, one of the issues was addressed. However, the second one is meeting with a storm of obfuscation. It has followed three patterns, 1) I bring up a reasoned description of the sources, I'm met with a "that's wrong" with no citations perhaps a note on my talk page saying I'm abusing the forum or some other noise, I reply perhaps explaining why it is right, and there is no more responses as though the issue is closed. 2) I make an entry in a section on topic, there is no or little response, and a new section or sections are opened on the topic with an opposite view, typically uncited, or perhaps something cited from a dictionary, nothing I said is mentioned, and I'm shunned from the new section with accusations of "hijacking". (see the bottom of my talk page). The second issue I've raised is straightforward and in all the source material. The Peano Axioms define a successor function This is very important because arithmetic is based on it. (My field is in applied arithmetics.) You know, repeated successor is addition, etc. Often this successor function is ignored, after all not very many people go around building arithmetic. But it is there, and it is important. Key references turned out have a discussion of mathematical philosophy from the late 19th century when all this happened. Those discussions are just being shut down. To get an idea how much work has been put into burying these two points, look at the talk page before I arrived, and look at it now. It was about 3 pages, it is now about 25. Have you tried to resolve this previously? 1) bringing more citations to the table 2) reasoned discourse in reviewing and reconciling the citations 3) Talk page is now very long, as are individual talk pages. How do you think we can help? Look at the bottom of the Discussion of the Lede section for example. Only one other editor participated while others ignored. I was told my changes to the lede required consensus and were deleted. If I tried to stop changes on the section by others I was accused of an edit war (see my talk page and that of DLazard). It would be helpful if edits I make based on citations are allowed unless they are discussed with reason and counter citations of merit. Summary of dispute by MajorPantsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by D.LazardPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The situation at Natural number and Talk: Natural number has already been the object of two notifications by Tkuvho at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Natural_number, in which he summarizes his view of the dispute. Thomas Walker Lynch is a new editor, with a low mathematical knowledge (this is blatant from his posts on the talk page and above discussion overview), who attempts to publish in Wikipedia his own views on numbers. After being stopped to edit the lead of the article in this way, he posted numerous lengthy comments on the talk page, most of them being relevant to a forum and not to a talk page. It results that for several threads of this talk page, it is really difficult to decide what is the subject of the discussion. He proposed also several new versions of the lead, all containing personal opinions and original research, and none following MOS:LEDE guidelines. These propositions have effectively not been discussed, IMO, because it would be a waste of time, as there will never get any consensus. Moreover, although Thomas Walker Lynch is certainly a good faith editor, it appears to be a crackpot user, and the advice "do not feed the troll" applies to the relations with him. I believe that it suffices to read above "dispute overview" to be convinced that I have correctly described the situation. D.Lazard (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Rick NorwoodPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Thomas Walker Lynch brings a great deal of enthusiasm to the rewriting of the page Natural Numbers, and as he says he writes there a great deal. I, and other editors, have tried to praise what he does that is constructive, and to explain, with references, where he goes off track. I have provided him with quite a few references to standard mathematics books, and other editors have done the same. I think he would be a better editor if he slowed down a bit, and considered his edits more carefully. His description above of the way he has been treated on the page does not coincide with my impressions of the situation. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Let me add that I do not see Thomas Walker Lynch as either a crackpot or a troll. If I had to guess, my guess is that he is a sophomore, which is no crime. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC) natural numbers discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
DRN coordinator's note and 72-hour closing notice: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. If I read the foregoing statements by MjolnirPants and D.Lazard correctly, they see this as a conduct matter, not a content matter. If that is correct then this request should be closed as futile since this noticeboard does not discuss conduct matters and since without those two editors — and participation here is always voluntary, never mandatory — any effort here would be futile. Unless they withdraw their conduct statements, above, and make summaries which only refer to content, not conduct, by 14:00 UTC on October 19, I or another volunteer will close this request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
|
Jesus
Edit request, not a dispute. No extensive discussion at article talk page as required by this noticeboard. Your concerns should be raised and discussed at the article talk page, not through dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Jesus is not a fictional character and it is portrayed such on the page. Jesus was a real person and is mentioned in history accounts and not just the Bible. Have you tried to resolve this previously? N/A How do you think we can help? Change him from not being a fictional character. Summary of dispute by nullPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Jesus discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Person of Interest (TV series)
Futile. No response by listing editor's opponent. Also insufficient talk page discussion on the primary listed dispute (Revamped_Recurring_characters) and quite a few other editors the other two disputes who have not been included here. If eventually relisted on the disputes which do have enough discussion, be sure to both list and notify all editors actively involved in the dispute as it is unfair to the DRN volunteers to have to figure out who to list, make sections for them, and notify them all. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Talk:Person of Interest_(TV_series)#Revamped_Recurring_characters discussion Several issues of content have arisen. I can accept (though I don't agree with) the rejection of using the TV guidlines, I think the content ordering should be consistent within the article and that some standards need to be in place. Other "related" discussions that are also in dispute to some degree: Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#Regular_cast_order, Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#The_dog_as_a_main_character Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried several compromises, all have been reverted. Several discussions have been started on the talk page(dog as main character, main cast order, recurring cast ordering). i have also asked for a discussion on user talk. There seems (at least to me) a reluctance to discuss and explain the logic and maintain a logic in the article. I try WP:BRD, but get revert with a claim to keep the status quo until a consensus is reached, but then no attempt to explain. How do you think we can help? I am not sure. I am not sure it is possible to insist someone discuss and insist someone try to compromise and collaborate (or even follow article guidelines). Even in the discussion at Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#The_dog_as_a_main_character where there does seem a local consensus to do something, Drmargi reverts it. I am hoping that some encouragement could help get Drmargi to at least explain their logic so I can work with that. Summary of dispute by DrmargiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Person of Interest (TV series) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Jakec and Dthomsen8
Conduct dispute over an editor's editing habits, not over particular edits or content, DRN does not handle matters which are conduct disputes (see instructions at top of page), so convincing an editor to act one way or another is outside our purview. (Moreover, even if this was focused on particular rankings it would seem to me that this is a matter which should be first taken to the talk pages of (a) the individual articles in question and then (b) the talk pages of the particular Wikiprojects affected before coming to dispute resolution.) This really seems to me to be something which, if taken anywhere at all (about which I neither express nor imply any opinion), ought to go to RFC/U. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Multiple times over the past year and a half, I've noticed the user Dthomsen8 assessing many of the 170ish articles that I've created. While some of these assessments are correct, many, if not most, are incorrect. One example includes this, which tags the article on the Catawissa Tunnel as start class, where WP:STARTCLASS seems to imply that this is for badly written articles, with such phrases as "distinctly unencyclopedic" and "weak in many areas". While most of the articles I create are not particularly long (I think most are in the 3000-5000 character range in terms of readable prose), I strongly disagree with the implication that they are badly written. As I said above, this has been going on for a while (see this tagging of an article that looked like this at the time and this tagging of Little Nescopeck Creek). These are just the most egregious examples; several dozen articles have likely been affected. It is not just articles that I have created either; see this tagging of this article, which no reasonable person could call a stub. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to ask Dthomsen8 to fix these issues multiple times. The 1st time I got an reasonable response. The 2nd time I brought up the issue, this happened (reassessment never occurred). The 3rd time, he admitted to using an assessment method that's out-of-line with the actual rules and suggested PR: overkill for changing an incorrect rating. The 4th and 5th times, I was ignored. (no links b/c 500 char limit) How do you think we can help? I hope you can succeed where my talkpage requests have failed and convince Dthomsen8 to slow down when assessing articles, to take the time to read them, and to read the relevant article assessment guidelines. Thank you. Summary of dispute by Dthomsen8JakeC has created a great many well researched and well written articles on Pennsylvania streams, and I appreciate the great deal of work he has done. When he creates these articles, he adds a WikiProject template for Pennsylvania and for Rivers without a class or importance. I have tried to keep the number of unrated Pennsylvania and Philadelphia articles low, and I have been doing this for years. Currently there are 4 "Unknown-importance Pennsylvania articles" and 2 "Unassessed Pennsylvania articles." Now I have decided to shift my main attention on Wikipedia to creating new articles. I have only created 129 new articles since my first article in May 2009, but I have some in progress. For now, this is my reply.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Jakec and Dthomsen8 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Boris Pasternak
No extensive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard and all other forms of moderated content dispute resolution. As a newcomer, consider the Teahouse for assistance. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview In beginning of October I wrote in Boris Pasternak (under Culture influence) that our book (where I was designer/illustrator for the "Twenty Thousand Faces of Pasternak book". It was OK about month. But yesterday I wrote also that "Washington Museum of Russian Poetry and Music" was created in Washington about 5 Russian poets of Silver Age, including Boris Pasternak. And this my input was deleted together with my prev. input in begin. of October. I tried to type again, but again they were deleted. It is the real book and real museum, so I don't understand why both now articles were deleted? Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to see the talk page but no resolution there. I deleted web site but sill no result, my input was deleted again How do you think we can help? Both inputs should be included back in that section. It shows that the name of Boris Pasternak is going back to restoring his name in the history. I'm Russian myself, so it is very important to see his name in USA. I'm currently finished to write about Cold War, and I included Boris Pasternak who the Cold War was handle in USSR at that time. So, please restore both of my 2 inputs. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Boris Pasternak discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Gilgit-Baltistan
Resolved by parties without DRN assistance — kudos to you all! — and withdrawn. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User:Delljvc has changed the titles of two cited articles to be different from what they were in the source diff (possibly with good intent). When I reverted the edit, another user User:TopGun has re-reverted my revert. The ensuing discussion is going nowhere. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Posted on User talk:Delljvc and User talk:TopGun. How do you think we can help? Please tell us the right thing to do! Summary of dispute by DelljvcPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TopGunPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Hi, this was a misunderstanding and has been resolved. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Gilgit-Baltistan discussionI can confirm that the issue is resolved. You can close this issue. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Just a reminder: It is the requesting party's obligation to make certain that all parties who have taken part in the talk page discussion are listed as parties, above, and are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and must include a link to this section. The easiest way to do that is add {{subst:drn-notice|Gilgit-Baltistan}} - ~~~~ on their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within a few days — usually 3-5 — after this case has been filed it will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
|
Talk:Riccardo Patrese
Withdrawn by filing party. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Content dispute. User:Epeefleche insists on the inclusion of a source which states that the subject of the BLP in question, Riccardo Patrese, is Jewish. User:Epeefleche maintains that the source is RS, thus automatically warranting its inclusion in the article. I dispute its inclusion on the grounds of there being no other sources to support its claim; that the book itself has not cited its own sources; and there being no direct quotes from Patrese himself on the matter. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Have discussed extensively at the article talk page, as well as RS:N. How do you think we can help? I would like input from editors who are familiar with BLP practices, in order to determine whether or not the source in question is sufficient to support the claim that Riccardo Patrese is of Jewish descent. Summary of dispute by EpeeflechePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Riccardo Patrese discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
24 hour closing notice: The filing editor has stated here that he may wish to withdraw this request. Unless he indicates otherwise here by 14:00 UTC on 28 October 2014, this listing will be closed as withdrawn. If, on the other hand, he does wish to continue, he needs to add and notify the other editors who have joined in the discussion at the article talk page and at the RSN discussion and create opening statement sections for them, above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
|