Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions
→Wikipedia: WP:DENY, improper use of noticeboard. |
|||
Line 754: | Line 754: | ||
*'''Volunteer Note''' - Keep discussion to a minimum until a moderator volunteers. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 22:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC) |
*'''Volunteer Note''' - Keep discussion to a minimum until a moderator volunteers. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 22:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
*'''Volunteer Note''' - Editors are advised that [[WP:ARBAA2|Armenia-Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions]] are applicable, to deal with [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground editing]] in areas that are real battlegrounds. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 22:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC) |
*'''Volunteer Note''' - Editors are advised that [[WP:ARBAA2|Armenia-Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions]] are applicable, to deal with [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground editing]] in areas that are real battlegrounds. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 22:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
== Wikipedia == |
|||
{{DR case status|closed}} |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 03:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1596769770}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! --> |
|||
{{drn filing editor|60.53.29.87|03:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{DRN archive top|This appears to be either trolling or an editor who doesn't have a clue what is wrong. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 13:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)}} |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> |
|||
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> |
|||
* {{pagelinks|Wikipedia}} |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> |
|||
* {{User|Worm That Turned and his cronies}} |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> |
|||
Many admins are trying to run me off this site due to me trying to return after my wiki break. I was a former admin ,Wikipedian in Resident but i lost my bit in 2016 due to Dave Craven punishing me for speaking out about his power grabs and because he hates sick people. |
|||
Since i returned ,all I have done was try to get back to what i was doing before I left but i was met with nothing but hate from admins who RBI me for no reason, without discussion. It's like WTT is so desperate to get rid of me they have to pretend I'm not here. |
|||
other users involved: SQL, TonyBallioni, Stwalkerster,HJ Mitchell, GorillaWarfare, Drmies, Bbb23, Bradv, Mz7, Sro23, Zzuuzz, etc etc. |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span> |
|||
en.wikipedia.org/ |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span> |
|||
Block all of the users involved until they apologize to me at best or at worst tell them to allow me to return to this site. Whatever i did wrong i am sorry for, now let me back on this here site. |
|||
==== Summary of dispute by Worm That Turned and his cronies ==== |
|||
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> |
|||
=== Wikipedia discussion === |
|||
I helped close the gender gap but that's not enough for them is it? My name is Kevin. |
|||
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> |
|||
{{DRN archive bottom}} |
|||
== Roman numerals == |
== Roman numerals == |
Revision as of 02:47, 25 July 2020
|
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Sales data dispute on Chris Brown article | Closed | Instantwatym (t) | 11 days, 3 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 9 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 9 hours |
Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV | In Progress | Avi8tor (t) | 9 days, 9 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 7 hours | Avi8tor (t) | 1 days, 16 hours |
shakshuka | Closed | LEvalyn (t) | 4 days, 21 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 9 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 9 hours |
Norse Deity pages | New | Dots321 (t) | 1 days, 22 hours | None | n/a | Dots321 (t) | 2 hours |
List of South Korean girl groups | New | 98Tigerius (t) | 1 days, 17 hours | None | n/a | Ravinglogician (t) | 1 days, 4 hours |
Benevolent dictatorship | New | Banedon (t) | 22 hours | None | n/a | LokiTheLiar (t) | 8 hours |
Talk:Taylor Swift | Closed | Gsgdd (t) | 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 57 minutes | Robert McClenon (t) | 57 minutes |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 00:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Current disputes
Cochin Jews
Closed. The filing editor did not notify the other editor, 72 hours after being reminded to notify them. Resume discussion on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
FBI files on Michael Jackson
Resolved. After discussion, a rough consensus has been reached on the wording of the section that was in dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
War of 1812
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs)
- Elinruby (talk · contribs)
- Davide King (talk · contribs)
- Ykraps (talk · contribs)
- The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
- Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There is an ongoing discussion about the results of the war of 1812, and how those results are shown in the results field, in the infobox. The article notes there is a dispute among historians as to who won the war of 1812, with some historians(Majority) saying it was a stalemate/draw, but others(a significant minority) say that Britain/Canada won. The viewpoint on who won differs between the two countries, with Canadians generally believing they won and the United States popularly say it was a stalemate/draw. I have proposed that for NPOV reasons, the result section in the infobox should reflect both views. The point was previously agreed to and consensus was that both viewpoints should be reflected in the infobox, as that would reflect what the article says - that discussion is here: [[6]]. This was changed later by a sole editor without consensus or discussion.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Both myself and Davide King have debated this and while we agree on somethings, we cannot agree on others, and have both agreed that a third party should look at the issue.
Summary of dispute by Elinruby
I am "involved" to the extent that I have been doing a third-party edit on the article, which has suffered from copyvios from old texts with archaic language and complete dismissal of any but cherry-picked texts. In my opinion the entire infobox should probably be deleted rather than have editors spend another decade shoe-horning in complex information. But. If the article must have an infobox, and apparently it must, all of the issues with balance and weight need to be resolved. Adding the defeat of Tecumseh helps. Adding that Washington and York were put to the torch also helps. I would like to see a reference for status quo ante bellum and a clarification that this applied specifically to the border between the United States and Upper and Lower Canada, since many tribes were displaced in the aftermath of this war. Elinruby (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Davide King
I am not going to waste my time repeating obvious things. Just read this summary (fixed typo here).--Davide King (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
By the way, The Four Deuces, Ironic Luck, Red Rock Canyon, Rjensen, Shakescene, Tirronan and perhaps others should have been added too as they were all involved in some way. Why are they not included or mentioned at all?--Davide King (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- (1) I looked at who was posting on the specific thread, it was mainly you and I, and it was you and I who both agreed third party comment would be good (2) I have posted a note on the talk page for anyone interested to be involved, with a link to this notice so they can certainly join in if they wan (3) Some of them have expressed the view they *Do not* want to discuss it, though I agree, I think The Four Deuces may so I will put something on his talk page and I have added him above - Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, the infobox does not say it was a draw; it says it was military stalemate which is not disputed even by those who say one side won. What is disputed (by a minority) is that it was a draw; it is not disputed that de facto it was a military stalemate. Military stalemate is also not mutually exclusive that one side, despite the de facto military stalemate per the Treat of Ghent, may have won according to some historians or popular views. What is mutually exclusive is draw and one side won, but we do not say either. We just say it was a military stalemate per the Treaty of Ghent. So I find this discussion unnecessary as per Shakescene we already had a long discussion that did not got us anywhere and that [took] up the equivalent of 12 printed pages or requires someone reading it on a desktop to hit "Page Down" about 15 times [...]. Besides it's really a variant of a position [Deathlibrarian has] been unsuccessfully litigating for a dozen years since 2008.
At least as far as the outcome is concerned, the infobox is perfectly fine.--Davide King (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Ykraps
Like it or not, 'stalemate' is not a neutral term, it is a point of view, and not one that all historians subscribe to. Historians may not agree on the result of the war but all of them agree that it is disputed. Some editors have made this an argument about who won or fringe theories which, to me, shows a lack of understanding as to what the proposal is. If the infobox redirects to the section where the result is discussed, each point of view can be represented and given appropriate weight. This is in line with the infobox parameter guidelines here.[[9]] As things stand, if you are the sort of reader that looks solely at the infobox, you will be left with the impression that stalemate is the universally accepted view, and that is quite wrong.--Ykraps (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by The Four Deuces
The dispute is about whether the info-box should say the outcome of the war was a draw or something else. One side says that we should report it as a draw, because that is how it is reported in textbooks and other tertiary sources. the other side says that because a small number of historians and popular opinion in the Province of Ontario have challenged the generally accepted view, claiming it was either a British, American or Canadian victory, we should report that the outcome is disputed. TFD (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Red Rock Canyon
The issue is over the infobox, specifically the "Result" section. Previously, the text there had enjoyed consensus for at least 3 years. Then last month some editors proposed a change. There was a short discussion and the change was implemented. Then some other editors objected and changed it back, and opened an RFC (now at Talk:War of 1812/Archive 23#Rfc about the outcome of the War of 1812). The RFC was poorly worded, leading to confusion among respondents (different editors making identical comments about what they believed the text should be framed their answers as both "yes" and "no"), but it was well-attended, with 12 editors commenting. Even while the RFC was ongoing, multiple editors opened many separate threads on the talk page about the same topic. The talk page quickly became obscenely long. Shakescene archived most of the talk page, including the still-active RFC [10]. The massive walls of text and proliferation of this debate into a half dozen different discussions is bewildering and exhausting. There are too many editors involved for this to be resolved on DRN. I believe the ideal solution is to shut down all the parallel discussions, including this one, and compose a clearly-worded RFC that gives editors two options (the long-standing consensus version and Deathlibrarian's proposed change). Then widely advertise it, including to participants in the previous RFC. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Ironic Luck
There was no reason to change that particular set of words from the infobox as the War of 1812 is factually established as a military stalemate which resulted in status quo ante bellum. This led to differing views (in Memory and historiography) of “who really won” the war. A significant portion of the sources stated that the war ended in as a draw or that both sides won. Some claim British/Canadian or American victory.
The reasoning that was proposed by DeathLibrarian reveals a double-standard in the Canadian/British perspective. The same defensive argument proclaiming that British territories (Upper/Lower Canada) won the War of 1812 could be flipped with the American state of Louisiana. Louisiana was not considered American territory by the British (as it was sold to the United States by Napoleonic France in the Louisiana Purchase) and probably would have been returned to allied-Spain if their invasion was successful.
I questioned how the British (and especially Canada) could claim victory when the Democratic-Republicans side of the United States celebrated their victory as they (strictly them) hadn’t lost anything in the war. There was even a Federal holiday to celebrate their victory (The Eighth) and lasted until the American Civil War broke out. The Americans in the modern era (generally) don’t care about the war. Canadian perspective is skewed with the Harper administration placing a large budget into commercial ads promoting nationalism with the “Canadian victory” narrative - when Canada wasn’t even a nation until 1867. Why "British/Canadian Victory-Stalemate" when the Americans felt they won at the time?
I conclude (as of now) that the number of historians that DeathLibrarian brings up as a Canadian/British Victory is an overblown proportion. Some of the sources he brought up stated that both sides claimed victory – perhaps a military stalemate linking to the memory and historiography section is a good idea? Ironic Luck (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon
I have read the article that states that Canada won the war. That statement is meant somewhat humorously, and is not meant to imply a British victory. That statement means that the inconclusive war between the United States and Great Britain, in which there was a failed American invasion of Canada, which was British (being the part of British North America that had not become independent in the 1775-1783 war), advanced the evolving concept of Canadian identity and of Canada as a distinct region that would continue to evolve into a nation. The statement was never meant to imply a British victory. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
War of 1812 discussion
Order of Nine Angles
Closed. Although the other editor responded initially, they did not follow up by responding to the moderator's request for a statement after four days. This appears to be a case where the other editor chooses not to engage in discussion. Read this essay and follow its advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Woman
Closed without prejudice against refiling. Sending back to talk page for additional discussion. Other editors have joined and discussion has occurred there since this was initially filed and that discussion needs a chance to work itself out. Can be refiled here if needed, but filing party needs to remember to list everyone who has participated in the talk page discussion AND to notify each of them of the filing here by leaving a note on their user talk pages. See the instructions at the top of the page for an easier way to do that. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz
Closed due to lack of adequate prior discussion. A volunteer stated that the filing editor had not discussed the issue on the article talk page. 24 hours later, the filing editor has still not discussed the article content on the talk page. They are advised to discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Times Radio
DR pending in another DR process. DRN does not accept cases pending in other forums. Moreover, El_C said: " The evidence was neither "clearly" presented, by either one of you, nor did it display harassment, from either one of you. Now leave one another alone. DRN is probably the worse idea for you two I could think of. Stop intensively interacting with one another. And no — users who participate in an RfC do not get to close these, obviously! And RfCs are meant to last ~30 days, not less than a week. Enough, GDBarry and Funky Snack, before either one of you find yourselves blocked. Go.Do.Something.Else. El_C 09:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)" — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Bulgars
Closed. There has not been a discussion on the article talk page. This appears to be a complaint by one editor about the conduct of another editor. Either discuss it on the article talk page first, or report the conduct at WP:ANI if there really is a conduct issue (but read the boomerang essay first). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
List of largest empires
Closed as not properly filed, probably not able to be properly filed, and not the best forum for the question. It is necessary to list all of the editors to file a case here. With more than 20 editors, a Request for Comments is a better idea, and does not require notifying the other editors, just putting the RFC in its place. If the filing unregistered editor wants assistance in formulating the RFC, they can ask on my talk page. Otherwise, resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes
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
User Mr.User200 adds the name of Polad Hashimov into the infobox as a commander/leader, however there is no any source claiming that he was a leader or commander during the clashes. Azerbaijani sources indicate that he died during the clashes, but do not indicate that he was a leader during clashes, Russian source (provided in article) says that he was from the 3rd Army Corps, but does not says that 3rd Army Corps participated in clashes and Hashimov was a leader at the time of clashes. And even if 3rd Army Corps participated in the clashes it does not mean that its Chief was a leader during the clashes (e.g. there is possibility that he was killed before he gave an order to his army to do certain actions during the clashes). The only source claiming that 3rd Army Corps participated in the clashes are Armenian that are not neutral and reliable and even these sources don't claim that Hashimov was a leader during the clashes. In my opinion here we have deal with typical POV-pushing of the product of original research.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes#Polad Hashimov
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Yes.
2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes discussion
- For the record, Azerbaijani editor User:Interfase started blanking and errasing my edit at Infobox on the 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes the first one was reverted with the (He was not a commander) Edit Summary here. However in the source provided (Azeri source) says that Gen Polad was the Chieff of Staff of the N Unit, killed in the clashes. While trying to revert it again it was errased with this edit Summary. The section of commanders and leaders means literally that. Commanders and leaders. User:Interfase requested a source saying that Gen Polad was a Commander or Leader or the Azerbaijani 3rd Corps. The issue was taken to talk page and another used brought a Russian (Thrid party Source) corroborating that Gen Polad was a part of the 3rd Corps here. I used the source to replace and back my edit, and User:Interface reverted back my edit and demanded another source indicating that there were no proof the 3rd Corps was taking place at the clashes here. At talk, I placed a Official Armenian Source stating that that the 3rd Corps was present at the clashes and that was run out of ammo. However User:Interfase demanded a Azerbaijani Source once again. In a clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT behaviour. Even he knows he dont have reasons to revert edits like that, demanding different things to justify its reverts. He placed a {cn} citation and a Original Research tag. He have a Heavy POV push of a personal way, I think national preferences should be placed in other place before editing. The article have a slight Pro-Azerbaijani POV, Azeri claims are used as primary sources, for example the claim that Serbia and Georgia were cobeligrents of Armenia and things like that. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes. Also Azerbaijan claims of Armenian soldiers killed are considered as factual and Armenian assesements of Azeri losses as "claims".Once Twice Thats wrong no neutrality at the article. Another POV push (See edit summary by other editor) Neutral editors should check all the content, or at least send aside their preferences.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- The first thing that we need to know is that "Chieff of Staff of the N Unit or Chief of 3rd Corps" and "Commander or leader during the clashes" are different things. Even if the unit participated at the clashes at some period of time we cannot claim that its chief was a leader or commander during the clashes until he was killed. This is that we call original research. Maybe the commander of 3rd Corps during the clashes (even if they really participated at the clashes that is hardly to believe because the 3rd Corps are based in another district) was another officer. Maybe the 3rd Corps participated at the clashes after Hashimov's death. We do not know. We still do not have any source exactly claiming that Polad Hashimov took part in the clashes as a commander or leader. But you trying to keep your version in the article by all means originally collected the different information from the different sources. That is POV-pushing actually. Interfase (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- For the record, Azerbaijani editor User:Interfase started blanking and errasing my edit at Infobox on the 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes the first one was reverted with the (He was not a commander) Edit Summary here. However in the source provided (Azeri source) says that Gen Polad was the Chieff of Staff of the N Unit, killed in the clashes. While trying to revert it again it was errased with this edit Summary. The section of commanders and leaders means literally that. Commanders and leaders. User:Interfase requested a source saying that Gen Polad was a Commander or Leader or the Azerbaijani 3rd Corps. The issue was taken to talk page and another used brought a Russian (Thrid party Source) corroborating that Gen Polad was a part of the 3rd Corps here. I used the source to replace and back my edit, and User:Interface reverted back my edit and demanded another source indicating that there were no proof the 3rd Corps was taking place at the clashes here. At talk, I placed a Official Armenian Source stating that that the 3rd Corps was present at the clashes and that was run out of ammo. However User:Interfase demanded a Azerbaijani Source once again. In a clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT behaviour. Even he knows he dont have reasons to revert edits like that, demanding different things to justify its reverts. He placed a {cn} citation and a Original Research tag. He have a Heavy POV push of a personal way, I think national preferences should be placed in other place before editing. The article have a slight Pro-Azerbaijani POV, Azeri claims are used as primary sources, for example the claim that Serbia and Georgia were cobeligrents of Armenia and things like that. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes. Also Azerbaijan claims of Armenian soldiers killed are considered as factual and Armenian assesements of Azeri losses as "claims".Once Twice Thats wrong no neutrality at the article. Another POV push (See edit summary by other editor) Neutral editors should check all the content, or at least send aside their preferences.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Volunteer Note - Keep discussion to a minimum until a moderator volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Volunteer Note - Editors are advised that Armenia-Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions are applicable, to deal with battleground editing in areas that are real battlegrounds. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Roman numerals
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Bigdan201 (talk · contribs)
- Soundofmusicals (talk · contribs)
- Spitzak (talk · contribs)
- Martin_of_Sheffield (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
I'd like to add a new section to the article, describing the convention by which Roman Numerals are constructed in a coherent, logical manner. My content is reliably sourced, and through various revisions has become quality work. However, even after refinement, other editors still refuse to assent to the section going up. Their complaints seem to boil down to one of the following:
1. that the ruleset doesn't describe the system in a meaningful, consistent way (which it does) 2. that it's not based directly on the relevant RS (which it is) 3. that it's somehow redundant and doesn't cover a second approach lacking in the article (also incorrect) 4. that readers will be flummoxed and confused by my content (in spite of my streamlining and clarifying)
The first 3 points are invalid. the only one that's debatable is the fourth, and even that seems to underestimate the intelligence of the average reader. there's nothing wrong with having a basic description and more thorough treatment side-by-side, I don't think this is confusing at all, and I can always mention in the lede how Roman Numerals can be described by two different approaches.
The article as it stands gives a basic overview, but it doesn't describe in detail how the convention works. My section fills in this gap, and it's derived from the RS. In fact, some of my RS also have a 'twin approach' of a basic description next to logical rules, so there's no reason the article shouldn't do the same.
my section can be seen here: Talk:Roman_numerals/Rules
As an aside, I'd be willing to compromise if necessary, as long as the core content is retained. For example, I could leave out the extended section on fractions/vinculums if needed.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Roman_numerals#Ruleset_for_Roman_Numerals,_revisited Talk:Roman_numerals#Let's_actually_look_at_the_famous_"ruleset" Talk:Roman_numerals#Latest_rendition_of_ruleset
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
My section has been blockaded by other editors, notably Soundofmusicals, who simply disagree with my approach, with not much of a valid reason other than IDONTLIKEIT. Thus, I'd like more judgment and input on this matter, so that I can add my content to the article without being stonewalled. Thanks in advance.
Summary of dispute by Soundofmusicals
"Dispute" has continued (off and on) for a period of years. It is between one user and several other users (almost everyone who has recently edited Roman numerals). The "additional" matter that has been "blockaded" is not additional - but repeats the general description of "how Roman numerals work". Only one user (the proposer) considers that this repetition is superior to the existing text. Many cogent arguments against the proposed repetition have been presented by several users but no "new" arguments have been offered in return - (arguments in favour are still the same ones that were brought up originally - attempts to progress towards a compromise have been steadfastedly stonewalled by the proposer. -- Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Spitzak
The proposal has more "rules" than there are different digits used in Roman numerals. It is not any kind of useful explanation, in fact figuring out what patterns are allowed by his rules and why is a difficult logic problem. Current explanation of the numbers is also bloated but much much better.
Summary of dispute by Martin_of_Sheffield
The history of this dispute is documented at great length on the talk pages, where a majority consensus was reached. My part in this is best summed up by the following:
Rulsets are a very 21C idea and we are attempting to force a 2 or 3 thousand-year old system into a modern mathematicians view of the universe. Would it not be much simpler to simply do the following and forget rules altogether? There are after all only a few possible components, not an indefinite number that readers need to construct.
which was followed by a table. Subsequently all other participants except Xcalibur/Bigdan201 took this as the basis for development. A further quote:
In any case this discussion really has moved to what version of the table we are going to use, and how it should be incorporated into the "description" section.
— Soundofmusicals
The discussion ceased on 4 June and the article has been stable since then. I'm not sure why Xcalibur/Bigdan201 has resurrected this nearly two months later. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Roman numerals discussion
- Volunteer Note - If the editors want to resolve this content issue by moderated discussion, moderated discussion here is available. However, moderated discussion here is voluntary, and it appears that the other editors think that discussion has gone on long enough. A Request for Comments on whether to add the table is an option and might be more likely to work. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Volunteer Observation - If the filing editor thinks that other editors have "blockaded" what they are trying to do, that implies that, for some reason, discussion is not working. In that case, a Request for Comments may be less unlikely to break the "blockade" than moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like to respond to points made above. Soundofmusicals: my content is not a 'repetition', and it's not a replacement for the existing text, but an expansion, covering a different approach taken from RS. I'm willing to compromise, just not so much that my proposed addition is negated. also, this first came up in late 2018, and again recently, because I ended up taking a wikibreak. Spitzak: my proposal (not including extra content) is 7 rules, and my sources have 5-7 rules each. I also don't think it's difficult at all in its current form. Martin of Sheffield: I have no problem with the table, but it's no replacement for the rules. As I said, this is not my own innovation, but a paraphrasing from the sources, to fill a gap in coverage. as for timing, I wanted to make sure progress was stalled before coming here, although I could've filed last month I suppose.
- I came here as my first stop, to figure out what to do. I agree that discussion seems tied up, and RfC may be the proper course. it comes down to this: I want to improve the article, and other editors won't let me do it, because they either philosophically disagree with it or dislike it. Xcalibur (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is a clear case of a very reasonable compromise having been reached by several users with a single dissenting voice. All you have done here is repeat stuff from the talkpage discussions about unidentified "gaps in coverage" and "reliable sources" that you have, for years now, invoked without ever actually citing. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- But I have cited my RS, and the omissions in the article that they fill. They're right there in my section, which I linked in the overview, namely: Allen Shaw's Note on Roman Numerals, NMSU, Math Forum, Paul Lewis' Roman Numerals: How They Work, and Lee K Seitz' LURNC. These should be more than adequate, especially with a scholarly journal. peruse the content, and you'll see basic descriptions (such as we have in the article), alongside logical rules for orthography (which are missing, and I'm trying to add). I don't want to replace any content, only expand the article to cover RS content which is lacking. I also note that Roman Numerals is considered a level 4 vital article in Mathematics, but is only C-class -- perhaps my contributions can make a difference in this. Xcalibur (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)