Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
|
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 |
Rafida | In Progress | Albertatiran (t) | 32 days, 4 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 12 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 12 hours |
Methylphenidate | Closed | Димитрий Улянов Иванов (t) | 8 days, | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, |
AT&T Corporation | Closed | Emiya1980 (t) | 1 days, 21 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 1 days, 2 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 1 days, 2 hours |
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 04:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Major Major Major Major
Closing as stale. I recommend starting a merge discussion on Talk:Major Major Major Major, plus using an RfC template and advertising the discussion at relevant WikiProjects if necessary. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
At Wikipedia:Verifiability
Moved to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Carlingford Lough - Location field
No consensus for change, article should remain as is unless consensus is obtained, perhaps via a RFC, see my extended comments below. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Suicide methods
Closed as premature, no discussion on article talk page as required by this noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Maple syrup
(Re)closing as moot. See closing notes and reclosing notes below. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 02:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Turks in Bulgaria
Talk page discussion must take place before filing a request here. Lord Roem (talk) 13:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Iron Guard - WP:POINT, WP:NPOV and WP:HARASS issues
I see a lot of accusations and reverts to a specific version by a number of editors without discussion in edit summaries or on the talk page. Thus, I am Closing as premature as discussion was not attempted before requesting assistance on this noticeboard.Curb Chain (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Ooty
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
Ooty is also a railway station and as such I added the article to [Category:Railway Stations in Tamil Nadu]. But one user Surajt88 dis-agrees with this category and has already reverted the category more than twice. Since I don't want to break 3 revert rule and so starting discussion here - as advised by him also.
He says Ooty is not a railway station. It is a town. I wouldn't mind adding it to a category like Category:Towns with Railway stations in Tamil Nadu. to create a new category like [Category:Towns with Railway stations in Tamil Nadu] and is not ready to accept that a railway station will obviously will be place which is either a town or a village.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Ooty}} --~~~~
in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Please see Ooty Talk Page -[4]
- How do you think we can help?
Please advise if a town or village has railway station - Can we not just add the article to Category : Railway Station in XYZ.
Jethwarp (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Ooty discussion
Template:Cue Where categories are concerned, I've looked at the discussion mentioned in the opening, and I'd like to know something. Ooty may be both a railway station and a town, but which is this article primarily about? If this article is about the town, and not specifically about the train station, I would say the train station category is likely inappropriate. The question: would a separate article about Ooty Railway Station meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? If so, perhaps Jethwarp can find reliable sources and write a separate article about the train station. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Kindly note the other discussions pertaining to this dispute here and here Suraj T 04:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I noticed that Ooty Railway Station is indeed notable and created the article. Anyway, the actual dispute arose when I asked Jethwarp to refrain from adding railway station categories to articles of towns and cities, which they have done on numerous occasions as can be seen from their contribs. Suraj T 05:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- It is so nice of Surajt88, who suddenly noticed that Ooty is also a notable railway station and created new article after the DRN was placed and a suggestion of creating Ooty railway station article was given by User:Sleddog116.
But my original question still remains to be clarified. In India - many towns and villages are connected by railway station. It is not possible to create a Railway Station article for each and every town & village.
For example - Brajrajnagar Railway Station is also a railway station, which is located in Brajrajnagar town.
Further, this would lead way to creation of many hundreds of one line articles for railway station for each & every town / village, which I think should be avoided. Instead, just adding Category of railway station to an article of town / village - just gives the reader of article knowledge that okay - the town is connected by rail road also.
Further, I am also not agreeable to Surajt88's suggestion given [[5]] of creating categories like Category:Towns with Railway stations in Tamil Nadu because this will lead to unnecessary categorization when Category:Railway stations in Tamil Nadu is already there. Further, there are villages also, which have rail road station, for that someone would suggest please create Category:Villages with Railway stations in Tamil Nadu, Category:Villages with Railway stations in Karnataka, Category:Towns with Railway stations in Karnataka & so on & so on leading to complex categories and complicating the matter further. Jethwarp (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Template:Cue Yes, many towns in India are, I'm sure, connected by rail. However, not all of those railway stations are notable. As far as categories are concerned, it doesn't really make sense to categorize a town by something that's there in it. For instance, Martinsville is a town in Virginia, and its main secondary school is called Martinsville High School (which has a separate article). It wouldn't make sense to categorize the Martinsville article based on the school - even though the article might mention the school, the school has its own article. In other words, any categories pertaining to the school would be attached to the article about the school, not the town. Similarly, the article about the train station would have the train station categories, but categorizing the town article under railway stations wouldn't make sense. (And creating all of those off-the-wall categories would create unnecessary categorization.) Sleddog116 (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
There is disagreement about whether the template should exist at all.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute?
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Template talk:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism.
- How do you think we can help?
I think the dispute needs some rational thought involved.
BoDu (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism discussion
Oh dear, another controversy about Yugoslavia in World War II. Great, just what we needed. Thanks for informing me : anyway, I have not really taken part in the controversy as I have lacked the time to contribute to the english wikipedia lately. Still, I do think there are some POV issues involved in this template, as in many Yugoslav-themed articles. My position in a nutshell is that the template should not exist at all, or rather be replaced by a template which would include everything regarding the Yugoslavia in World War II and not try to push forward any judgement about anybody. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. The template topic is inherently focusing on a specialized negative aspect. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree. Surely this is about whether the existence of the template is warranted by the sources and in the context of Yugoslavia in WW2. For example, it is abundantly clear from the exhaustively sourced material in the Chetniks and Pavle Djurisic articles that Chetniks and Djurisic collaborated. Djurisic was awarded the Iron Cross by the German commander in Montenegro, for Pete's sake! JJG's suggestion that no-one should be trying 'to push forward any judgement about anybody' is surely a contradiction to the encyclopedic nature of WP. If the reliable published sources make judgements that collaboration was a significant issue in Yugoslavia in WW2 (and they resoundingly do), then my view is that the use of the template is appropriate in that context. If collaboration is significant in context, then it does not matter if, as North8000 suggests, it is inherently focusing on a specialised negative aspect. It is significant, and this justifies the template. I must say I feel the cold hand of POV touching my shoulder on this one, and I must also say that there are quite a few editors on these articles that are from the countries involved, who have strong sympathies for one of the nations or ethnic groups involved, or have strong views on the events of WW2 in Yugoslavia (ie axes to grind or at the very least a perceived conflict of interest). I have observed that these feelings and sympathies can lead some editors far away from the sources. BoDu for example, who has brought this dispute here, makes it clear on his user page that he despises Tito and is a fan of a member of the WW2 Yugoslavian government in exile (Grol). I do my best to WP:AGF regarding all editors, and I hope BoDu does his best to keep these feelings at bay when he edits articles that relate to Tito and the Partisans or Serbs involved in WW2, but if he has those views, he's pretty close to the problem, and it makes it much harder to discuss these things with him because his view is not necessarily based on reliable published sources. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. BoDu never brings up sources, and on the singular occasion he did bring-up a source, has been caught blatantly falsifying it (apparently listing a publication and an author with random page numbers hoping he wouldn't get called on them).
- Disagree. Surely this is about whether the existence of the template is warranted by the sources and in the context of Yugoslavia in WW2. For example, it is abundantly clear from the exhaustively sourced material in the Chetniks and Pavle Djurisic articles that Chetniks and Djurisic collaborated. Djurisic was awarded the Iron Cross by the German commander in Montenegro, for Pete's sake! JJG's suggestion that no-one should be trying 'to push forward any judgement about anybody' is surely a contradiction to the encyclopedic nature of WP. If the reliable published sources make judgements that collaboration was a significant issue in Yugoslavia in WW2 (and they resoundingly do), then my view is that the use of the template is appropriate in that context. If collaboration is significant in context, then it does not matter if, as North8000 suggests, it is inherently focusing on a specialised negative aspect. It is significant, and this justifies the template. I must say I feel the cold hand of POV touching my shoulder on this one, and I must also say that there are quite a few editors on these articles that are from the countries involved, who have strong sympathies for one of the nations or ethnic groups involved, or have strong views on the events of WW2 in Yugoslavia (ie axes to grind or at the very least a perceived conflict of interest). I have observed that these feelings and sympathies can lead some editors far away from the sources. BoDu for example, who has brought this dispute here, makes it clear on his user page that he despises Tito and is a fan of a member of the WW2 Yugoslavian government in exile (Grol). I do my best to WP:AGF regarding all editors, and I hope BoDu does his best to keep these feelings at bay when he edits articles that relate to Tito and the Partisans or Serbs involved in WW2, but if he has those views, he's pretty close to the problem, and it makes it much harder to discuss these things with him because his view is not necessarily based on reliable published sources. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Having extensively read the discussion at hand, and arguments for and against the template, I would like to assist in the resolution of this dispute. Firstly, I wish to address that given that editors in this matter have a horse in this race it is essential that inflammation of the situation be minimised. People feel passionate about things, and when you butt heads with someone with opposing views whether intentionally or unintentionally it is always a distressing issue.
The matter of the template appears to have a pre-existing consensus as to it's neccessity, and all elements therein are extensively sourced. I am assuming that the extensive sourcing is in place due to the controversial nature of the issue. Whilst no one wants to hear bad things about their nation or ethnic group, and whilst people have varying views on history based on personal experience, these issues border on original research and emotive elements that cannot be dealt with within Wikipedia.
We have guidelines and policies to assist us with these matters, and in situations like this it is probably more prudent to take issues with the policies that allow something you disagree with rather than turning to an article to champion your cause.
My grandfather was a Yugoslav partisan, although I know nothing about the matter beyond that, so I shall leave my interaction on this matter purely as commentary rather than determined dispute resolve.
To my credit, half of my family were on the allied side, the other half on the axis side, from British naval and air force officers, to a member of the SS, the partisan grandfather, etc, etc. So I swiftly learnt to have no vested interest in those sorts of issues to survive family gatherings; but again I feel that this (whilst not reflected anywhere on Wikipedia and thus is purely me being transperent and open about something personal in my family history that may be held against me by participants in this dispute) may be enough to remove me from the argument.
If on these grounds any party would like me to step away from this dispute I am more than willing to do so. We have numerous active volunteers who are here to help you, and as much as I would like to assist I can just as easily ask another volunteer to step up. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Of course its sourced. Thoroughly sourced. And all participants aside from BoDu have taken that into consideration. -- Director (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Kids in Glass Houses
Page semi-protected. If there is any further vandalism after protection expires on June 3, please use the steps outlined in Wikipedia:Vandalism. Best regards, Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Jeffrey Epstein
Closing as premature. Please engage in substantial discussion with others editing the article before coming to dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 02:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
The Mole (MC/producer)
Closing as Wrong venue. The correct forum to request undeletion for articles is WP:DELREV (except proposed deletions and deleted articles with only the nominator participating).Curb Chain (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Carlingford Lough - The border
Closing as premature. This should go to WP:3O or WP:RFC first. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Richard F. Cebull
No closing comments were detected |
Closed discussion |
---|