Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 72
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Dihydrogen monoxide hoax
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Editor in question appears to have understood applicability of WP:NOTABILITY to his additions. I would suggest taking the matter further to the edit warring noticeboard (WP:ANEW), if the editwar resumes. -- Nbound (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview On May 23, User:DanDan0101 made three consecutive edits adding a section about a pair of webs.com websites to the dihydrogen monoxide hoax article. I reverted the addition, but he has repeatedly reverted me and it has gone back-and-forth for the past few days (though I don't believe either of us broke 3RR). DanDan admits to being Daniel Sun, so the addition is somewhere between an autobiography, a conflict of interest, and pushing a self-published site. I have attempted to explain why his addition is inappropriate, but he continues to re-add the material. The websites are entirely non-notable, and one does not exist yet. I am not the only person to revert the addition: 50.46.154.28 also did so here (though he isn't really part of this dispute). OK, I give up — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanDan0101 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussed on DanDan's talk page. How do you think we can help? I would like DanDan to learn what is and isn't appropriate for inclusion in the article. Opening comments by DanDan0101Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Dihydrogen monoxide hoax discussionI am a DRN volunteer and this appears to be a clear cut case so I will comment early, the webpages dont meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements and should be removed. As stated in the previous discussion between the involved users Wikipedia is not for things WP:MADEUP in one day, even if the creater thinks the site is the WP:NEXTBIGTHING -- Nbound (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Post closure comment: This is a good faith move, Chris857. I understand now what the editwar actually meant and why you kept putting up-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanDan0101 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Treatment Advocacy_Center
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No exhaustive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Everything on this article is one sided. It reads like a brochure from the "Treatment Advocacy Center". Anything "negative" is summarily removed. You can't even point out that "involuntary commitment" is a euphemism for forced drugging. I have started this dispute resolution because this page has had long time disagreements as to what should be contained therein. I think full disclosure is important, so following the advice of previous suggestions in the talk page, I added a new section called "Censorship of Controversies" where I state that the organization has a website that invites comments on its facebook page but removes anything it doesn't like. This gives the impression that there is no controversy of these topics. Since they are using the reputation of Wikipedia to increase their appearance, I think this should be noted. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried starting a discussion on the talk page. My edits were removed without anyone responding. They just said on the edit I need a "consensus" How do you think we can help? Help form an article that is not just an extension of the organization's website. It should be more neutral. Not just based on what the organization says. Opening comments by User:207.207.28.109User notified of DRN, using notice template at 11:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by TrilobitealivePlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Treatment Advocacy_Center discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Page Plus_Cellular
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. See advice by Nbound, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 12:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Note: Post closure comment noted, volunteers/complainant are in agreeance that best course of action is WP:RPP, remaining closed. -- Nbound (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Prone to linkspam. I am hesitant to edit war to re-add this yet again:
Have you tried to resolve this previously? Explanatory edits, edit summaries and talk page comments. How do you think we can help? You can take and/or suggest next steps - Keep reverting? RPP? Other? You can provide an opinion on :Talk as to whether I'm right to say 'no reseller links', or suggest a compromise? Opening comments by various IPsPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Page Plus_Cellular discussionLinks appear to violate WP:ADV and WP:LINKSPAM. I would suggest taking the page to WP:RPP as you have already suggested. The editors adding the links appear to be short term SPAs, and would therefore be unlikely to participate in the DRN process (they would need to all be individually invited anyway). Let me know if you do wish to continue the DRN process or if you would prefer the case closed so you can pursue possible protection via RPP. - Nbound (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Post Closure Comment: TransporterMan: You're mistaken; I followed procedure : "If you have already tried to discuss this issue already and have received no response from others, you may go back to the previous page and file a request - but this must only be done if you have attempted to discuss the issue first." - from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request after I clicked 'Not Yet'. I don't mind THAT you closed it, but your reason is invalid. Will go to RPP.--Elvey (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Keith Johnson (author)
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Editor now understands that WP:NNC and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works apply. -- Nbound (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview I wish to bring to the attention of the WP community a dispute with one of its senior editors 'Reddogsix' over the notability (as used in its technical sense in WP). In essence the senior editor accepts the article - Keith Johnson is a writer, writing school science textbooks, principally about physics - but feels that the books titles themselves should not be listed as to quote the senior editor on his actions 'Removed fluff, this is not a resume' We seem to be in a position where we have a 'notable' article about an author who writes 'non notable' books. We have had at least 8 exchanges, all of which can be found on the senior editors archive page, in which I have produce an increasing body of evidence culminating in references to 44 independent reviews of the books published in the Times Educational Supplement and school science journals. I am looking for support that the books are 'notable' and the titles should be reintroduction into the article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Bringing forward an increasing amount of evidence to support the 'notability' criterion Exchanges with Reddogsix Post a note on the 'Notability' notice board on 24/05/13 no comment so far How do you think we can help? Assess the evidence produced that the works of Keith Johnson satisfy the notability tests of WK Have the titles of his publications restored Opening comments by Reddogsix
Keith Johnson (author) discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though Reddogsix has not yet responded, I do want to make a couple of notes, however:
Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Inappropriate for DR/N, as is already under discussion at multiple RFC's. Nbound (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Several long term content disputes are ongoing and no party is willing to accept that their is a consensus on anything (Even after it has be discussed for months now). Right now I have open RFCs on the Background section of the article, the wording of various section, etc. Have you tried to resolve this previously? RfCs, conversations on the talk page (should review the Archive section also), posting on relevant notice boards. How do you think we can help? Help to bring to light any issues with the article and help all parties to understand the view of the other. Where there is legitimate consensus, help all parties to see that. In sum, help move all parties to resolve the remaining issues of the article. Opening comments by Anonymous209.6Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by ArzelPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Digvijaya Singh_(politician)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Neither party has participated beyond opening statements, which are now a week old. -- Nbound (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I wish to include a section on Praise in the WP article on the former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister and current General Secretary of the Indian National Congress, Digvijay Singh. This is praise expressed for Digvijay by his political adversary, current Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh Shivraj Singh Chouhan who had commended and praised Digvijay in a public speech. So the praise is significant because it is by his political adversary who is occupying a prominent position and because the praise was expressed in a public lecture. Further the praise tends to balance out the criticism of Digvijay in his WP article. All the other three users do not want the section on praise to be included in the WP article of Digvijay. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Put this up for discussion on the talk page. User:Darkness Shines and User:MohitSingh have responded saying they stick to their position. How do you think we can help? Allow me to insert the edit in the main article if you think it to be appropriate. Opening comments by MohitSingh
Opening comments by Darkness ShinesPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by SitushPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:Digvijaya Singh_(politician) discussionComment: The article should contain a little of both. The most important negative things about someone, and the most important positive things about someone. That is what we aim for; a Neutral Point of View (or NPOV). Having a section dedicated to the praise of someone would be giving it undue attention. Just mentioning that his political rival has praised him at one stage isnt. The article shouldn't be a soapbox one way or the other. Take the article on Adolf Hitler, most people would consider this man to be undeniably evil, and you could write an entire book on what he did wrong (many people have!). But the article itself just focuses on the facts of his life, and career; with comparatively little directly dealing with anti-Jewish reforms and the Holocaust. In essence, general criticisms of political (or any) views that people may hold, more appropriately belong on the page of the viewpoint, rather than the page of the person who holds them. This is even moreso true for those who are still living. -- Nbound (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Nazi Germany
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Per closing proposal, below. Closing without prejudice to refiling if needed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview there is a dispute about whenever "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" should be included on the infobox as nazi germany's motto, there were users stating their position but it needs more users to get involved Have you tried to resolve this previously? i tried reasoning with them How do you think we can help? make more third party users state state their position on the nazi germany Opening comments by DiannaaA better way for Peterzor to attract more participants to the discussion would be to open a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I am pretty sure the assistance of a moderator is not required at this point. My comments on the content are as follows: I oppose inclusion of the motto. This was a political slogan and rallying cry of the NSDAP, not to my knowledge adopted as an official motto of the country, which its inclusion in the info box in the "national motto" field implies.Given that the only source provided so far does not back up the claim that this was a national motto, I am removing it from the article. My removal has just been reverted by User:Rjensen -- Dianna (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by BosonPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The meaning of "motto" in the infobox is not clearly defined. I interpret it as "a phrase commonly associated with the country concerned and used nationally by the regime". National symbols do not have to be official. So I am in favour of consistency with other articles, fairly inclusive criteria, and broad editorial judgement - provided that the reader is clearly informed of the actual status of the motto. I believe its inclusion in this case is consistent with the criteria used elsewhere, for instance the motto Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit in the Germany article. In the case of Nazi Germany, there is added confusion because it was a one-party state in which there was a deliberate "equation" of state and party. So I was in favour of including the motto with an appropriate note, as a middle position. I do not think the situation is clear-cut, I have sympathy for the arguments against its inclusion, and I do not have strong views on the subject, so I am happy with any decision. --Boson (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by NugThere is no basis why this particular slogan should be selected as a "nation motto". As Henry Conserv in his book National Slogans from Around the World[1] explains, slogans were created for specific purposes, "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Führer" (One Nation, one People, one Leader) was one of many used specifically to build support for Hitler, such as "Führer befiel, wire folgen!" (The leader commands, we follow!), "Alle sagen Ja!" (All say Yes!). Others were created build hate against Jews, such as "Deutschland Juden Frei" (Germany free of Jews) and "Deutsche! Wehrt Euch, Kauf niche bei Juden!" (Germans! Protect yourselves, don't buy from Jews!), and other slogans were created to control women's behaviour "Die Deutsche Frau raucht niche" (The German woman doesn't smoke), and others to condition German youth for war: "Wir Sterben fur Deutschland" (We were born to die for Germany) and "Heute gehort uns Deutschland und morgen die ganze welt" (Today we have Germany, tomorrow the whole world), and so on. If there was one slogan that could be characterised as a "national motto" it would be "Blut und Boden" (Blood and Soil), not only is this slogan reflected in the colours of the national flag, it forms the essence of Nazi ideology were the land is bound to German blood (and hence the exterminationist policies of "purifying" that land) and the foundation of the concept of Lebensraum that drove Nazi attempts to conquer Europe. --Nug (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by RjensenPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
I agree with Boson. Rjensen (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by KierzekAs I stated, it was and is one of the best known mottos but not the only one used, as noted above; I agree it is far from being clear cut it was an "official" one for the nation. The better argument is that it was a NSDAP propaganda slogan in the 1930s, pre-war. I am on vacation at the moment and have very limited internet access and time; I will therefore not be commenting further at this point. Dianna, Boson, Rjensen and Nug can carry on as to this just fine without me. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Nazi Germany discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the instructions at the top of this page and at WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Like my colleagues Nbound and Guy Macon, I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Several points and opinions:
Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC) TM makes some good points, and I support them -- Nbound (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Closing proposal: It would appear that productive discussion is proceeding at the article talk page. While Peterzor's removal should not necessarily cause this discussion to be closed, neither should this remain open if the remaining editors do not feel they need DRN's help at this time. Rather than just let this sit, I'm going to propose that this be closed without prejudice against refiling. Unless multiple requests that this remain open are made here by the participants by 14:00 May 30 (UTC), I or another volunteer will close this in that way. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Adam Kokesh
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Parties have withdrawn from discussion, closing due to inactivity. Nbound (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The page in question Adam Kokesh. He is ethnically Jewish, religiously Atheist, and politically anti-Zionist. He is an Anti-war activist, whose stance on Zionism plays a part in his role as such. Given that wikipedia requires citations for claims, i sourced the only (blatantly clear) citation where Kokesh described himself as an Anti-Zionist in clear and simple terms. That is his Twitter account. Disputing user in question (User:SPECIFICO) repeatedly reverts and removes the claim along with its citation, claiming non-permissibility of twitter as source as per Wikipedia:RS. Which is not true, as RS does allow it in various cases. Disputing user does not budge. Merely says its not allowed. When someone makes a statement, and then period. It is hard to debate, since there is no debate. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Have spoken in Talk Page. Disputing user responds with statements, but very little understanding sentiment. How do you think we can help? Disputing user in question (User:SPECIFICO) repeatedly reverts and removes the claim along with its citation, claiming non-permissibility of twitter as source as per Wikipedia:RS. Which is not true, as RS does allow it in various cases. Disputing user does not budge. Merely says its not allowed. When someone makes a statement, and then period. It is hard to debate, since there is no debate. Opening comments by SPECIFICOPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
I believe that I fully explained my concerns concerning RS and BLP on the article talk page. To facilitate the resolution of user:DA1's concerns, I suggest that DA1 specify here, in DR, the proposed text and the reference citations that would support its inclusion in the article so that we can have a clear discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Adam Kokesh discussionNote: DRN notice sent to SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) by me at 12:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC) -- Nbound Is it possible to summarise (please, no more than a few lines worth at this stage), the points of each side so far? At face value, a self-published twitter feed meets WP:RS, unless there is reason to doubt it, or the article is relying upon the same twitter feed for the majority of its content. -- Nbound (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for my late reply. I did not know that this discussion had already commenced. I will have to apologize i actually reinstated the disputed statement before i could see this and make my reply here. I did not intend to abuse good faith, i am willing to nudge on that (if reverted edit). The issue here is the use of twitter as a source, where subject (Adam Kokesh) has tweeted his solidarity with "Anti-zionism". His use of the phrase "my people" refers to his Jewish ethnic persuasion, since many Jews are Zionists. He however tends to the anti-Zionist persuasion. However, it seems from user SPECIFIO's reply here, that now the content within the source is being disputed and not the source itself. Well, in that case i must address the change in story. The content should not be disputed as the source is a verified account of Adam Kokesh. I would like to hear who disputes this. And, the "tweet" in question does state his solidarity with the Anti-Zionist persuasion. The added video link in the tweet is merely an added bonus (confirming his feelings), that being a video he made criticizing Israel. DA1 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Chinese Cultural Sphere, Sinocentrism
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No input from involved editors besides opening statements, closing due to inactivity. Nbound (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Personal attack - user 'Ross Monroe' has personal disagreement with some of the edits and accused me as 'pro china'. Some of the attacks this user have The new map added by User:Durianlover1 has way too much of a pro-Chinese POV. I've reverted it back to the original. I highly doubt that all of Siberia, Central Asia, Nepal, and Southeast Asia are part of a single cultural sphere.--Ross Monroe (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC) "More accurate"? Really? Do you have sources to back that up? [citation needed] please. Comparisons to Greater India are completely irrelevant. I'm not sure why you and Shrigley are bringing it up. I'm not trying to insult you, but we need sources here.--Ross Monroe (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on the talk page. How do you think we can help? This user has strong "anti-china" point of view on the Chinese-related article. We should ensure objectivity on any article, regardless of political affiliation. Opening comments by Ross Monroe I did overreact and I have already apologized for that on the article talk page. But just look at the image to the right, the one that Durian is trying to add. Nearly half of Asia is labeled as part of China's cultural domain. It's not an ad hominem to say that this is a pro-China image. This image violates two policies, Wikipedia's policy on neutrality and its policy on reliable sources. No reliable sources have been presented so far that proves that regions as disparate as Siberia, Nepal, and Kazakhstan are part of the same cultural sphere.--Ross Monroe (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Chinese Cultural Sphere, Sinocentrism discussionHi, I am a DRN volunteer. The image shown above doesnt appear to be based on a reliable source, and as such it could be considered WP:OR. While most images are excluded: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article." This article appears to illustrate an unpublished idea; or perhaps, a WP:FRINGE theory if only a few sources can be found. -- Nbound (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
|
political party
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | This is not a dispute, only a complaint by the filing editor. Howicus (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Is it mandatory that all biographies include what political party a person is a member of in the Unites States, past and present? We find that really intrusive and inconclusive and invasive. Have you tried to resolve this previously? none How do you think we can help? maybe put in your guidelines Opening comments by nullPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments byPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
political party discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Comment by closing volunteer: This would probably be better for WP:Village pump (policy).Howicus (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:requests for adminship/Mattythewhite
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | DRN request refers to an active RfA, also conduct is the main issue, which is largely out of our jurisdiction. The votes in question were highly suspect (Two brand new users opposing an RfA). -- Nbound (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Note: Filing editor also now blocked. -- Nbound (talk) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this? Yes, I have discussed this issue in the edit summery. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User is deliberately attempting to offset votes he does not agree with. Two by new users. Such activity runs afoul the principle of assuming good faith. The comments posted were not malicious in any way. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Attempted to restore votes but Lukeno94 seems to be persistent How do you think we can help? I believe all votes should remain unaltered until the discussion is closed. Lukeno94 is welcome to refute the comments he disagrees with but he has no right change them Opening comments by Lukeno94Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Well, I have no idea what the IP thinks they're doing here, but anyway. The above RfA has been the victim of two trolling SPAs (ie, the named accounts here, whom aren't me, but made their first edits to the RfA), and the votes were initially indented following a discussion on the main page, and the talk page, by User:Bbb23 - an admin - due to their nature, in this edit:[6]. I filed an SPI against the two SPA accounts, which was closed without action; a CU proved they were unrelated, which is fair enough. The IP reverted this indenting here [7], which I reverted once I spotted it here.[8] It was then followed by the IP attempting to discredit my vote,[9] promptly restored by User:GB fan.[10] The IP removed the indenting once more, which I reverted again, citing consensus, and then the IP brought this here. The IP is pretty clearly either trolling, or violating WP:POINT, so this DRN should be closed, and the IP should be blocked. The IP has also claimed I have a WP:COI in this edit,[11] but hasn't explained why this is (it's bullshit regardless). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by scstadmPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by TXDRDGRPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Wikipedia:requests for adminship/Mattythewhite discussionTwo brand new editors commenting on an RfA is highly odd. They were indented for a reason. Obviously having a DRN is inappropriate given the discussion in progress at the RfA and I will close this case (out of our jurisdiction, is mainly a conduct issue). I would suggest the admin noticeboard if there are any further issues. -- Nbound (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
|
corporation, share, joint stock co and many others.
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Filing editor has been banned indefinitely for socking. Also wished to be unbanned. Need to ask the banning admin or take it to a higher level if you do think you have been treated unfairly. Outside of our jurisdiction. Nbound (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview I have tried to argue my point about shareholder ownership on TALK under Corporation. This is the third time I've done this over the years as Admin archives the argument. I have listed numerous cites. No other editor has listed ANY cites. Yet somehow I lost the argument. Blue Haired Lady and others disagreed so much with my edits that they ganged up and got admin to block me after 3 reverts on Joint Stock Co. I was unblocked later and won the dis. res. so I reverted once and was banned. It's ridiculous. Admin is ridiculous. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Unban me so I can make the proper edits. The editors who fooled admin into banning me have again posted their incorrect information. How do you think we can help? Let's have it TALKED out on the Corporation TALK page. Opening comments by bbb23Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by blue haired ladyPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
corporation, share, joint stock co and many others. discussion
|
Energy Catalyzer
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Parties unwilling to cooperate. Filing editor continuing inappropriate claims/discussion of a WP:FRINGE theory. Nbound (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The introduction the Andrea Rossi's E-Cat has two mistakes. 1. Claiming that no independent test has been run, when it has. 2. The selection of a negatively biased blog comment from Ugo Bardi, when there are better qualified scientists who say the opposite. See the end of the topic talk page for details. If I try to edit the piece it is immediately deleted. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have posted to these two editors and neither will respond to the points I made. Summed up by AndyTheGrump's comment. "I am not interested in debating this with you." How do you think we can help? I have no idea. The facts seem plain enough. LENR is still a controversial subject but as time has passed it is becoming accepted. I gave the link where hundreds of peer reviewed papers can now be found. It seems that hot fusion physicists in particular are reluctant to even look at the subject, but it probably not even fusion. An on-going test has been run in class at MIT for months demonstrating the effect. Opening comments by AndyTheGrumpPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by AlexbrnPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Energy Catalyzer discussionNote: I have placed notifications of this discussion on both Andy and Alex's talk pages. -- Nbound (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC) If he's not interested in discussion then the process here is not going to help at all (its voluntary). At a passing glance I would be leaning to WP:FRINGE, the consensus of the scientific community at large is that cold fusion is not possible. -- Nbound (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
History is littered with cases of breakthroughs that went against the scientific consensus. From the Wright Bros, through Ignaz Semmelweis ending up insane because he couldn't get doctors to wash their hands or Barry Marshall discovering H. pylori is the cause of most peptic ulcers. “Everything must be taken into account. If the fact will not fit the theory---let the theory go.” If LENR were easy, maybe the world would go bang, but it's not. You are confusing the test of Rossi's 1 MW plant with the recent independant tests organized and paid for by Elforst. How do you explain the long demo at MIT? Rossi has no incentive to conclusively prove the E-CAT works as it is impossible to get a Patent on cold fusion in the US and proof would only spur competition. Parallel (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Beyonce Knowles
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Futile since opposing editors have declined or failed to participate. Consider a request for comments if you still wish to pursue this matter further. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Aichik's edit (here) asserts that Knowles "copied liberally" from 3 European artists, citing a source for only 1 assertion. Not only do I think that this wording contravenes WP:NPOV, I see the information as wrongly placed in the "Public image" section. Here, relevant criticism of the BLP is made in line with her portrayal in the media; whereas the three instances refer to criticism for the artist's music videos. Two instances are already discussed on Wikipedia (Run The World (Girls)#Controversy and Countdown (Beyoncé Knowles song)#Controversy) in which a discussion of the instances is more informed and neutral. In both, the reports that she copied was made, but also the artist responded saying she viewed and was inspired by both pieces. The current "Public image" section asserts that other artists have copied Knowles, and although in part referring to public image, I think this should also be removed as it deviates from the purpose of the section; which is ultimately her public reception and not critique of her work. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussed on the talk page and through user talk pages. How do you think we can help? Advice and mediation. Opening comments by AichikPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by 76.189.109.155First, I have absolutely no interest in this DR discussion, nor do I really understand why it was started. It looks like Aichik, who I don't even know, hasn't edited the article in several days (although I have no idea, nor do I care, what their past involvement in it has been). My only purpose in commenting in the article's talk page discussion, as I made clear there, was to give my thoughts on whether Aichik's sources were reliable or not, since they were being scrutinized. I see that Aichik participated in that discussion prior to my comments, and hasn't made any changes to the article since then. So, again, I'm confused as to why this DR was started, instead of just continuing the discussion on the article's talk page. As the DRN instructions above say, "Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page...to work out the issues before coming to DRN". As I said in my final comment at the talk page, "If there's disagreement, consensus will have to decide what belongs, and where." In any case, I don't care one bit about this content or placement issue. So with that, I'm out of this. Good luck. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Beyonce Knowles discussionHello, I am Smileguy91, a dispute resolution volunteer. JennKR, please clarify 76.189.109.155's role in this situation. smileguy91talk 02:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
24-hour closing notice: I, like my colleague Smileguy91, am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Since this listing has been open for a week and one of the two primary parties has not chosen to respond and the third has indicated that they do not intend to participate, then this listing will be closed as futile unless at least Aichik changes his/her mind by 16:00 hours on June 4, 2013 (UTC). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Gödel's incompleteness_theorems
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closing for no dispute. In addition to the 4 editors listed here EdJohnston has also taken the position at the listing editor's talk page that the material should not be in the article based upon the single current source. That is a clear consensus against inclusion and, in that light, there is no dispute to be resolved here since the community has already spoken on the matter. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Thompson ('Arithmetic Proof and Open Sentences' Philosophy Study 2 (1) 43-50 (2012)) claims that only closed and not 'open' sentences containing free variables are capable of proof. Similarly, only gödel numbers of open sentences are capable of arithmetic proof. Gödel's key sentence stating that the gödel number of a certain open sentence is unprovable becomes unsyntactical. On this approach to proof standard proofs of not only Gödel's incompleteness theorems, but of the Diagonal Lemma, Tarski's and Löb's Theorems are all claimed to be blocked. Thompson's critique does not preclude proof of these theorems by other means. The issue is whether a short reference to this article (without endorsing its claims) should be made in the 'Criticisms' section of the Godel article. So far there has been a refusal by some editors to countenance such a reference without any sign that these editors have read or understood the article. Since Lob's Theorem is a corollary of Godel's Theorem and offers a seemingly unacceptable result (According to a leading text book it seems to allow the proof of the existence of Santa Claus) then there must be some measure of doubt about Godel's Theorem. No one appears to have refuted the claims in Thompson's paper. I consider its claims to be significant.I have posted summaries on the article on the talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have posted explanations of the article and invited discussion of its contents. To date no editor criticising the edit shows any sign of having read or understood it. I have listed everyone who might be relevant. I do not know how serious some of them were. Mr Eppstein and EEng. It is also not clear whether some of them have the technical knowledge to make objections How do you think we can help? It would be good to have a calm voice to ask people to address themselves to the intellectual matters. Opening comments by David Eppstein
Opening comments by TkuvhoThe recent article by Neil Thompson deals with Goedel's theorem and is in principle relevant to the page. However, there are currently no secondary sources at all citing Thompson's article. User:Fernandodelucia acknowledged that the absence of secondary sources is a substantial factor here. Therefore the inclusion of Thompson's article in the page would be premature. Tkuvho (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by ProsfilaesIt's not a reliable source, and no reliable sources comment upon it. Gödel's proof of his incompleteness theorem is one of the most studied proofs in mathematics, and many brilliant mathematicians, including Paul J. Cohen, have looked for ways to invalid it and failed. I am very suspicious of any attempt by a law student to invalid a theorem accepted by the best minds in mathematics.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by EEngComments added after discussion closed: I fully concur with David Eppstein, Tkuvho, Prosfilaes. It is necessary to repeat one editor's comment of more than a month ago [12]:
Unfortunately it has not sufficed. Fernandodelucia has made no constructive contribution at all to Wikipedia; his efforts have been entirely devoted to a year-plus campaign of insistence that the Thompson paper be inserted in this article [13]. After Transporterman's comments closing this discussion, any further attempts by Fernandodelucia along these lines would constitute egregious, willful disruption per WP:ICANTHEARYOU and a substantial block will be in order, lest the time and patience of additional editors be further squandered on this non-issue. EEng (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Gödel's incompleteness_theorems discussionNote: I have made parties aware of the discussion on behalf of the filing editor. As no invitations had been sent, that I could see. -- Nbound Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Financial Modeling
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive talk page discussion as required by this forum and by all content dispute resolution forums at Wikipedia. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview In 2012, the Official Financial Modeling World Championship was held in New York. The event was sanctioned by Microsoft (the owner of Microsoft Excel), Bloomberg, Deloitte, S&P, AMT Training and many other leading Finance, Excel and Financial Modeling organisations worldwide. The event has $100k in prizes and also had Professor Simon Benninga (the world's leading academic authority on Financial Modelling as a reference) as a lead judge. Thousands of participants were involved. The Modeloff is widely regarded as the highest standard world-wide for practioners within the industry. For further information, visit: www.modeloff.com. I have tried on 5-6 occasions to have 1 sentence (non-promotional, just a single line) included at the bottom of the Financial Modelling Wikipedia Page or Financial Analyst Wikipedia Page. Someone continually sabotages/targets me - by immediately deleting my additions. It is hurtful and undermines the major role that Modeloff has fundamentally played in helping students and professionals to grow and demonstrate their skills to an international audience. It feels like I'm being victimised or that someone doesn't fully understand the magnitude/significance of the Financial Modelling World Championship Event. I feel the world event is not being being treated with respect, equality and dignity. This is 100% a non-commercial or non-marketing activity. I'm happy for someone else to write the reference, in whatever format is deemed suitable. Thank-you kindly for your assistance. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I would simply like to include my reference/link to the official world championship at the bottom of the Financial Modelling definition/Reference under the External Reference section. It is a simple, quick, basic request. How do you think we can help? Under "Financial Modelling" Reference, I would like the following: EXTERNAL REFERENCES "Modeloff - Financial Modeling World Championships [www.modeloff.com) Opening comments byPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Financial Modeling discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Sandom and associated Talk Page
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | The filing editor has agreed to take a backseat approach in regards to the article. Nbound (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview When I was alerted to a COI posting at the top of the entry about me (living person), I tried to engage with editors on the Talk Page in a civil tone. In response, I was -- in essence -- called a liar; hardly a civil response. My reaction (which could have been less animated and more Borg-like in its nature) prompted further negative comments, and the deletion of more and more of the Article about me. Now, it is down to a bare nub. One might as well simply say, "Mr. Sandom was born," and leave it at that. It adds no value to those who are seeking to learn more about me or my past. I may be accused of "soapbox" behaviour -- on the associated Talk Page, NOT on the Article Page. I may also be accused of being a vocal critic of Wikipedia and Web 2.0 itself; I don't find "critic" in this case to be a negative term, but I do have a point of view and would like to see Wikipedia adapt and respond to many of its critics, including me. That said, I don't believe that the current Article really does much of anything except prove that Wikipedia's editors don't always have a great command of the language, and that some are prone to "revenge editing". I would like to see an Administrator or more seasoned editor take a look at the article and clean it up based upon ALL the suggestions that have been made over the last couple of weeks. Thanking you in advance, J.G. Sandom Have you tried to resolve this previously? Dialogue on the Talk Page. How do you think we can help? I would like the individuals who are already involved in this debate (including myself, the subject of the Article) to step aside and let fresh eyes look at the matter. Opening comments by HuonPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The "called a liar" claim probably refers to this edit of mine. I still stand by every word I said there, and Sandom confirmed that my doubts about his daughter writing those phrases herself were entirely justified. Given Sandom's numerous claims of what I did and what I deleted that are unsupported by the evidence, he couldn't complain that much if I had called him a liar, which I haven't (and I don't - I expect that was an honest mistake, not a deliberate lie). As to the "revenge editing": We all know of Qworty. We may have differing views about pseudonymity. That doesn't mean every edit Sandom disagrees with is a personal attack by editors who are out for "revenge". WP:AGF is not a one-way street. Huon (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Bbb23Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by TheOriginalSoniPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
I'll let those above diffs speak for themselves. All I've got to say is that I've shown exceptional good faith and patience when trying to deal with Sandom (Way too much than ought to be given), and we all can see what we're getting from him in return. I'd be willing to make a more substantial statement if it were not such an open-shut case. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Cullen328Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
My involvement in this matter has been limited to comments on the biography talk page, Sandom's talk page, and my own talk page. All my comments were intended to reduce tensions; and to introduce Sandom to our core policies and guidelines and to the behavioral norms that make it possible to be a successful Wikipedia editor. He was critical of anonymous editors; I disclose my real world identity, and so I thought that perhaps I could serve as a diplomatic bridge in the early days of this dispute. I have made no edits to the biography itself. Sandom has responded to me in a friendly fashion, which I appreciate. However, it seems to me (I could be wrong) that Sandom's goal is to reshape his own Wikipedia biography in fundamental ways. This proposed rewrite seems not limited to correcting errors of fact, but also to areas of interpreting, shaping and expanding the summary of what the reliable sources say about him and his career. Not surprisingly, the rewrites he proposes tend to make him look better. This is natural, since he is a successful ad man and author with a forceful personality. It seems to me that Sandom has chosen the "wall of text" technique to win out over other editors, and I see signs of that same pattern of behavior in this dispute resolution. I understand this behavior, but can't aid and abet it. I will say nothing else critical of Sandom, as I perceive that he has done nothing more than what comes naturally to a man of his accomplishments. Accordingly, I will step aside and let fresh faces take over any rewrites of this biography. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Sandom and associated Talk Page discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Pre-opening comment: It would be worth writing what exactly it is you would like to see changed in the article. You arent going to find a DRN volunteer who will read the entire talk page there. As well as any related material on user talk pages. Assume I am a complete stranger and discuss the case that way. At the moment all I can see from your overview is that you dont like the COI tag being applied? :S -- Nbound
Not sure if I'm meant to leap in here...so I will. No, TheOriginalSoni, I could give a fig about providing my fans with information about where I went to school, unless that information adds value to their (and others) understanding of me as a writer and/or Net entrepreneur. My desire to include on (or do you say in?) the Article Page the writers under whom I studied while at Amherst is not whimsy, vanity or self-aggrandisement; it's a legitimate desire to help folks understand who my major influences as a writer are (or were). That's it. And surely you don't really believe that the "Early Life" section you scripted is actually superior to what was already there? Nor can I believe you think that the "Digital Career" section you've penned really provides any value to Wikipedia's readers? You may think this is an open-and-shut case, but I clearly don't. I am at a real loss as to why you and Huon have been so resistant to using mainline, well-recognized (not social media) sources to speak about my work; e.g. The Washington Post. Yes, the citation was reluctantly added back . . . but why was it so reluctantly reinserted. Truly, I am at a loss. For whom is Wikipedia being written/edited if not for those with an interest in the Articles they read? I really can't fathom how anyone might think the first of these two sections is the superior one: Number 1
Number 2
Number 1 is the section edited by TheOriginalSoni. Number 2 is the section it replaced, written (and I'm just assuming here) by one of my "fans" this PM. Or was this done by a Wikipedia editor or admin? Anyone know? The bottom line, gentlefolk of Wikipedia, is that -- at least IMHO -- Number 1 really doesn't inform your readers, or tell them very much at all about me or my work (the subject of this Article), while the latter does. Now, it may not have the requisite citations. If so, please point this out. You may find it puffy . . . but I certainly don't when compared to so many other Articles here at Wikipedia. I really, really want to know. Sandom (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC) My post that was previously -here- has been moved below -- Nbound (talk)
I hope that you can see from Number 2 (above) what I believe would be appropriate for the Digital Career section of the Article. To make things equally clear re the Author section, here is what I submit makes sense. It is virtually identical to the Author section that TheOriginalSoni expunged this afternoon:
The latter two reviews contain both positive and negative notes. The first (about Kiss Me, I'm Dead) does not. I really could not find any negative reviews from any major sources. If you can, please feel free to add that negative note to balance it out. I have written 9 books (well, 10, if you count the one that is done but has yet to come out), so I don't think that 3 reviews is excessive. If you guys do, I submit that 3 reviews on this author page is better than three Articles, one per book, which is what I see many authors have here at Wikipedia. Thanks. Sandom (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Post moved here:
Thanks, NBound. Nicely stated. But, to be clear, I don't look at this Article Page as my "personal Wikipedia page". It does not belong to me -- although it does have an impact, God help us all, on the perception people have about me and my career, and that's one of the reasons I've been so passionate about my concerns. Perhaps too much so, NBound. I'm sure Cullen328 thinks so, and I respect his judgement. Part of my concern about this Article and Talk Page is my concern about Wikipedia and Web 2.0 in general, and it's really not fair to take it out on you guys. So, sorry for that, but the diatribe is a direct result of your anonymity. Since I have no one to engage with personally (save Jim - Cullen328), you become a monolith, a brand, ciphers for Wikipedia . You become, in short, Wikipedia itself. Thus, your anonymity, rather than protecting you, makes you a target. Also, I guess, this has been -- in part -- a reaction to (I'd surmise) young inexperienced editors who, emboldened by their anonymity, say things that are rude or even insulting because they can . . . and can get away with it. If someone calls me a liar to my face, they know they might get a punch in the nose (metaphorically, at least). So, especially when they see me in person, folks generally are more circumspect in their comments. Huon was not. In the end, as I stated earlier on the Talk Page associated with the Article about me, you are judge, prosecutor, and jury -- all rolled into one. What can I say? I have made my case as to what I think makes sense as an Article Page about me -- not so very different from what has been up there for years and years. Had I kept my mouth shut, had I not tried to engage with you, had I simply used sock puppets to make selected changes to the Article, had I not been forthright and honest in my exchange, the Article would be very different today. But my parents always taught me to be open, honest and direct, and to stand behind my name. Perhaps, as you claim, Nbound, time will bring the Article back to where -- in my view, at least -- it should be. Perhaps not. Frankly, now that I've had my say (even if sometimes my say, and/or the say of my supporters was summarily deleted), it all seems a rather weightless affair. Thank you all for your input. What irony that the COI seems to have disappeared now that so little remains of the Article. A fitting end, I believe. If I ever get around to finishing the article about this affair that I've been working on, I'll make sure to let you know where you can find it. (So, no, EEng; I'm not worried about the publicity ... clearly. The more the merrier. Please post something about this exchange on the Article page, and put the COI back so folks will be directed to the Talk Page. That would be peachy.) Cheers and best wishes. I think I'll follow NBound's advice now and simply toddle off. Sandom (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Sandom, the only reason the article is stripped back is that the edits with potential COI have to be removed, its not to actually remove the information itself (if you get my meaning). Once it is stripped bare, the template can be removed, and then work can immediately begin on rebuilding the article (and I hope that is started shortly). I would encourage you to offer guidance on the talk page, there is nothing stopping that, just keep within the guidelines at WP:COIU. :). I do appreciate the fact that you have been honest (I think we all do), and it probably has worked in your favour; noone has tried to obtain admininistrator intervention against you as far as I am aware, and this is probably only because you are the article's subject, given the amount of talk page information generated over this, I think its fair to say that the other involved editors have been relatively patient (this isnt to say I approve personally of their styles of response). I hope we do continue to see you around on Wikipedia :) -- Nbound (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
We can get into the semantics of it all day (it was an implication, rather than an explicit declaration). But at the end of the day, whether or not edits were made by the daughter are irrelevant. They have no bearing on the content of the article [they would have been removed as potential COI just because they came from that account]. And the ensuing discussion involving the edits could avoided. -- Nbound (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
|
religious views of Adolf Hitler, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Requested relief not within the scope of this noticeboard. This noticeboard is only for content disputes, not conduct disputes. If you wish to seek a topic ban against another editor, the proper venues are WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI, though filing there will likely cause any content resolution here — i.e. the one in the listing immediately above — to be closed until those conduct matters are resolved. Feel free to bring up any content matters you wish to discuss in the case pending above. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Clearly I am not the only one who has violated Wikipedia rules here, and as you seemed to be willing to guide this conflict, I would like to present to you my case against Ozhistory (talk), I left him this on his talk page in response to his accusations against me on my talk page. He proceeded to remove this as "vandalism", so I offered him the same courtesy in removing his comments from mine as vandalism as well. Any way, it was his POV violations that got me fired up in the first place, though I admit I have handled it wrong. I am prepared to accept responsibility for my actions, though I hope to see just application of Wikipedia standards for both parties involved in this dispute. If you see look at the talk page on Religious views of Adolf Hitler as well as mediator User:Deadbeef, we had reached a consensus on talk, whereby Deadbeef had finally asked whoever does NOT agree with the lead as written, please speak up. Neither of us spoke up, inferring an agreement. When I checked back a few weeks later, Oz had totally bit by bit rewritten the lead to suit his POV, without a single time referring to the talk page. If you note, I have been more than willing to talk, albeit somewhat belligerent to other users at times, to my regret. But at least I was willing to talk, and willing to stick with initial mediation rulings. Oz was not, and he is as a part of this ongoing dispute as well, despite his desire to paint himself as an innocent victim. Here is basically my complaint against him, plus the previously mentioned bypassing the mediation process we had already gone through, should be considered quite unethical. Ozhistory (talk)In your edits on Adolf Hitler you have received a citation for edit warring, and I see you are currently involved again on the The CatholOzhistory (talk)In your edits on Adolf Hitler you have received a citation for edit warring, and I see you are currently involved again on the The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany in reverting oth Many of yo Have you tried to resolve this previously? Mediation, talk pages How do you think we can help? I would like to see OZhistory banned from editing these two pages as he is unilaterally doing the edits, and being quite rammy with his POV (apologizing and distancing any Christian actions in relation to the Nazis and the holocaust.) Opening comments by ozhistoryPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by deadbeefPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
religious views of Adolf Hitler, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Greengrounds, do you, as filing editor, mind if this discussion is merged into the above one, that was filed by Deadbeef? -- Nbound
|
Talk:List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Conduct dispute, not content dispute. This noticeboard is only for content disputes, not conduct disputes, per the instructions at the top of the page. If you wish to make a conduct complaint, consider WP:RFC/U or WP:SPI. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Dispute regarding a source on an episode guide. User explained his rationale but made a pointy SPI report in an obvious attempt to get me blocked. User has a history of assuming bad faith and filing SPI reports against anyone who an edit he doesn't agree with. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Attempted to revert, but explained myself on the SPI page How do you think we can help? User should be advised to AGF and remember that WP can be edited by anyone in the world Opening comments by ryulongPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
MugsWrit is a relatively brand new account editing a topic area frequented by two banned users, which raised my suspicions. There is no "history of behavior" that he is bringing up, but his "not again" here is questionable. MugsWrit is also upset that I will not allow him to use the Power Rangers fan Wikia as a reliable source for his edits.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Jim1138Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
David John Pearson
| The parties have not yet discussed the issue in the article talk page. FalkirksTalk 02:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Filed by 24.207.127.20 on 04:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Please review the edit changes and dialogue with Yworo on this article since 29 May 2013. His initial edits: •Fragmented the article, putting the CADES achievement into Early Life when it was perhaps the main career achievement of Pearson •Inserted the need for citations, verifications and references above each paragraph when they were clearly present (12 in total) •When I asked to go to arbitration over his approach, no action resulted from him. In frustration with what I considered to be an arbitrary and slipshod approach to editing by Yworo I reduced the article substantially on 6 June to avoid any claims of bias he might have. On 7 June I added additional references to cover his initial spurious claims re c,v&r's. Within a very short time, he had reverted to his initial major edit and has blocked further reversions by me. I consider this current article poor in a number of respects. Yworo accuses me of engaging in an editing war, having a conflict of interest and not providing verifiable information, all of which I strongly dispute. Could I ask that you review the edit dialogue for this article, reinstate the version that I published at 17:18 on 7 June 2013, and prevent Yworo from continuing his arbitrary war of attrition on this article? Thanks and kind regards, Andrew
Several comments in the edit talk section How do you think we can help? Could I ask that you review the edit dialogue for this article, reinstate the version that I published at 17:18 on 7 June 2013, and prevent Yworo from continuing his arbitrary war of attrition on this article?
Opening comments by YworoPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
As you can see Talk:David John Pearson. there has been no discussion on the talk page. Nor has there been any discussion on my talk page or the IPs talk page. IP is unaware of our preferred article structure, and keeps moving early life and education into the lead section, and has also removed all sections entirely, leaving a stub article. The IP also can't seem to tell the difference between sequential level 2 headings and nested headings, claiming that the CADES section is inside the early life section: it's not, it follows it, rather than being contained in it. Most likely the IP is the subject, and he is trying to conform the article to something his marketing team wrote. He seems to have no idea of the difference between an edit summary and a talk page, and has not engaged in any discussion whatsoever. Frankly, he should be blocked, as he keeps regressing the article to inferior forms. Sheesh. Learn how Wikipedia works before tromping all over the flowers, buddy. Yworo (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC) David John Pearson discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Justin Trudeau
| <This was resolved by consensus on the article talk page> EBY (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by 64.228.66.119 on 22:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC).
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 The dispute is to whether the predecessor of Justin Trudeau as Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada was: 1. Michael Ignatieff, or 2. Robert Rae Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have edited the page to correctly reflect the record of the party's succession. Since it was edited back, I have engaged on the discussion page with citations from the Liberal Party of Canada's constitution. In the face of repeated counter-edits without the citation of any authority, I seek a third party opinion. How do you think we can help? It would be meaningful for an impartial third party to do a few things: 1. Remind users not to continually edit a page without meaningfully giving authoritative reasons on the talk page where there is a dispute. 2. Invite users to say that, if they believe Robert Rae was ever the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, to say when he was elected, at what convention, by how many votes, and why that election is not reflected on his own Wiki page. 3. Emphasize the importance of sourcing. Opening comments by KBilliePlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Newfoundlander&LabradorianPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by DbrodbeckPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
This was already figured out like a month ago, I have no idea why this is here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by 117AvenuePlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
This is a trivial argument that ended over a month ago. Dispute resolution wasn't needed. 117Avenue (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by KrazyteaPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
I thought this was resolved a month ago already but apparently it has been brought up again? The resolution then appeared to be that since the Liberal Party of Canada lists all leaders including interim ones as leaders that they become the official leader and thus its usage by convention in the infobox. All pages use this model as do other parties such as Stéphane Dion of the Liberals and Thomas Mulcair of the New Democratic Party. Other propositions were offered up to include both but we seemed to be for the most part satisfied with current situation. Krazytea(talk) 00:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by CJCurriePlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments byPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:Justin Trudeau discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Capoeira
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Discussion has stalled. Nbound (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Unregistered member making wrong statement in the begining of the article, and backing it with an absolutely out-of-context reference. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried using the article's talk, got no answer. Can't contact other user directly, as he's an unregistered user. How do you think we can help? The most important thing, as the article talks about a somewhat polemic part of Brazilian culture, I believe it's edition should be limited to registered members only. Also, mediation in the "talk" section might help, although the other user failed to answer my last message. Opening comments by 46.7.236.155Disagreeing with someone is not making a "wrong statement." I have backed up my edits with reference to two reliable sources. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Capoeira discussionHave you invited this member to the discussion via their talk page? The IP address should be added instead of "unregistered member" above aswell -- Nbound (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
It should also be noted that IP editors have as much right to edit non-protected articles as the filing editor does. The statement "I believe it's edition should be limited to registered members only" concerns me a little. If both parties do not continue discussion here within the next day or so, I will close this case. -- Nbound (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Before I start the discussion, I noticed this on the talk page: "OK... I'm assuming good faith, I'm assuming you really got confused, so I'll explain it.", this can come across as not assuming good faith (Imagine if someone said this to you midway though something you cared about). Im sure you didnt mean to come across that way, so just keep in mind to try and not WP:BITE the newcomers. -- Nbound (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
|
David John Pearson
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No thorough talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard (and all other forms of content dispute resolution here at Wikipedia). I'll leave a note on the other editor's talk page encouraging him to respond to you at the article talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Please review the edit changes and dialogue with Yworo on this article since 29 May 2013. His initial edits:•Fragmented the article, putting the CADES achievement into Early Life when it was perhaps the main career achievement of Pearson and should remain in the Summary.•Inserted the need for citations, verifications and references above each paragraph when they were clearly present (12 in total). In frustration with what I considered to be an arbitrary and slipshod approach to editing by Yworo I reduced the article substantially on 6 June to avoid any claims of bias he might have. On 7 June I added additional references to cover his initial spurious claims re c,v&r's. Within a very short time, he had reverted to his initial major edit and has blocked further reversions by me. I consider this current article poor in a number of respects.Yworo accuses me of engaging in an editing war, having a conflict of interest and of not providing verifiable information, all of which I strongly dispute. Could I ask that you review my Talk input and the last few days' edit dialogue for this article, reinstate the version published at 17:18 on 7 June 2013, and discourage Yworo from continuing his war of attrition on this article? Thanks and kind regards.
Listed my response to Yworo editing comments in Talk section. No response from Yworo to this. How do you think we can help? Could I ask that you review my Talk input and the last few days' edit dialogue for this article, reinstate the version published at 17:18 on 7 June 2013, and discourage Yworo from continuing his war of attrition on this article? Thanks and kind regards. Opening comments by YworoPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
David John Pearson discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Gustave Whitehead Wiki and Talk Page
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Insufficient listing. There are quite a few other editors involved in this discussion at the article talk page. Please feel free to relist this dispute with them listed as parties, but resolution is too unlikely without them being included here and adding them manually into the existing listing will be too difficult. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview On the Gustave Whitehead Wikipedia page, Binksternet is accusing people (myself and one other recently) of edit warring. I am adding information to the page to maintain neutrality and provide accurate information. Binksternet and a band of cronies who have controlled this page for a long while, had placed negative, inaccurate information on the page about Gustave Whitehead, who is a contender for first in powered flight, and is increasingly being recognized as first in powered flight, in 2013, ahead of the Wright Brothers. The people who are irritated by this and controlling the page are those who are Wright enthusiasts or writers about the Wrights. I have removed negative words and inaccurate portions on occasion, have mostly added far more content with many citations. Binksternet recently had a tv producer who does history shows blocked from editing the Whitehead page, this is so inappropriate. He threatens me with being blocked whenever I add content and improve the page with more information, which it was sorely lacking. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have talked to Binksternet about what he is doing and asked him to stop and to recognize that I am using citations for everything I add to the article. How do you think we can help? Instruct Binksternet to stop trying to control the page and to allow information concerning Whitehead that has citations to be placed therein. He needs to realize that Gustave Whitehead is increasingly being recognized and not to take it personally. People have the right to know about him in an informative, not negative manner. He needs to stop threatening to get people blocked who are merely adding information. It is Binksternet who is edit warring. Opening comments by BinksternetThis request is somewhat malformed in that the other editor identifies myself and my "cronies" as the other party. If "cronies" are to be addressed, each one should be identified individually and notified. I would be surprised to find that I have cronies—it was my impression that other experienced editors were also interested in Gustave Whitehead, but there has been no coordination or conspiring among them, as far as I know. Each editor operates on his own. Furthermore, the other editor makes the incorrect assumption that I am a Wright brothers fanatic of some sort, a writer or historian connected to the Wright's legacy. I am not: I am a professional audio engineer who is lucky enough to get paid spending lots of time listening for flaws in audio, time which allows me to get online and edit Wikipedia as I do my job. Anybody looking at the list of articles I have started would immediately see that I am interested in the Arts, Architecture, Military History, Civil Rights, California history, the Bohemian Club and of course Audio topics. My military side is mostly the history of military aviation, which is why I have a tangential interest in general aviation history such as early aviation pioneers. One such article I worked very hard to improve is the one about the Coanda 1910 "jet" airplane. This article brought me into contact with the writings of Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith who was the world's premier doubter of Gustave Whitehead's early aviation claims. I have read each of the Gibbs-Smith books, borrowed from the local university library, and I understand he is highly regarded as an early aviation reference. My only desire at the Whitehead article is to make certain that highly regarded sources such as Gibbs-Smith are represented with due weight. The other editor wants something else entirely: his words and actions express the wish to make the article reveal to the whole world the WP:TRUTH about Whitehead, which is whatever the less highly regarded sources say about him flying prior to the Wright brothers. I don't think Wikipedia readers would be well served to give them the impression that minor viewpoints are mainstream, and that mainstream viewpoints are wrong. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Gustave Whitehead Wiki and Talk Page discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
World War II Casualties use of India or British Raj
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Stale. May have been resolved by subsequent edits or listing editor may have retired. Can be refiled if dispute continues. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties in this article, in British Commonwealth section, British India is referred as India and undivided India, In WW2 India was a colony of Britain. Known as British India and it was also undivided, India during Mughal period was also undivided but it was not involved in WW2., so I believe British India, this term is better as it was simultaneously Undivided and was involved in WW2. Off course it is my own view, but I believe It is more specific. Have you tried to resolve this previously? No. How do you think we can help? Sending an expert. As well as following Logic. Opening comments by Woogie10wPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
I reverted this entry by Ovsek [15] based on the source listed below The Commonwealth War Graves Commission uses the description "Undivided India" on page 43 [16] The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is an official source that is reliable beyond question. They put Indian war WW2 dead at 87,000. Undivided India is the description used by theCommonwealth War Graves Commission. We use reliable sources on Wikipedia that can be verified, not the unsourced POV of Ovsek The BBC refers to India and the Indian Army [17]. The bharat-rakshak.com webpage uses the description Indian Army, they wrote More than 87,000 Indian soldiers lost their lives during this conflict, [18]-- --Woogie10w (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I made these two entries, I hope they will end this dispute. [19] ----- [20]--Woogie10w (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC) User talk:Woogie10w discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Pre-opening comments:
http://www.worldwar-2.net/casualties/world-war-2-casualties-index.htm http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/colonies_colonials_01.shtml http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Galleries/Wars/British/WW2/?g2_page=2http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/india.htm http://warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm Undivided India means India prior to 1947 Partition Of India under any kind of Government. India during Mughal period was also Undivided. It was not involved in WW2. British India was undivided and was also involved in WW2. The country's name was India, governed by Britain, not it's name was undivided India.Ovsek (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
BBC also provides Indian causality number.BBC History is no doubt reliable source.Ovsek (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC) It is proved that Bharat Rakshak is reliable.Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_31#Bharat-Rakshak_-_RS_or_non-RS
|
PRISM (surveillance program)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Technically, closed for inadequate discussion at time of filing but actually appears to be moot having been resolved at the article talk page once discussion started after this filing. Feel free to refile if I'm incorrect or additional assistance is needed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Changes to the lead by [[User:Somedifferentstuff|Somedifferentstuff], who has not participated in the discussion on the talk page regarding this issue. Very limited consensus has emerged on how to lead into this article with an NPOV. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page, additional references. How do you think we can help? Eliminate the risk of edit warring and encourage all parties to build consensus on the talk page. Opening comments by SomedifferentstuffThere is currently a discussion taking place on the article's talk page. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC) PRISM (surveillance program) discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Bediusk Łatin
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Not within the scope of this noticeboard. Address deletion matters to the administrator, Peridon, who deleted the page and if still not satisfied to WP:Deletion review. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I provided links, refs and other required things. Yet a speedy deletion thing is slappes on it ? Have you tried to resolve this previously? By asking the admins why he slapped a Speedy deletion message on my article How do you think we can help? By accepting the fact I have provided references
Bediusk Łatin discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Tanzania
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Closed by MGray98 (talk · contribs) as was resolved. Adding comment to remove redtext. -- Nbound (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview One user, Underlying lk, insists that gross domestic product per capita (purchasing power parity) be included in the infobox for the article Tanzania. I believe that this data should be omitted because the International Monetary Fund (IMF) used a grossly inflated divisor (estimated 2012 population instead of the 2012 census results) to calculate the data. Thus, the data is wrong and misleads readers of the article. As a compromise, I suggested that the IMF's data be included plus the quotient of GDP (purchasing power parity) divided by the census results. Underlying lk has rejected the compromise and has reverted all attempts at compromise. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page discussion. Edit warring noticeboard (Underlying lk reported). How do you think we can help? Provide an impartial opinion. Opening comments by Underlying lkPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
I'm not sure that this can be fairly described as a content dispute. I don't think that this matter has been discussed sufficiently, or that a solution agreeable to both me and AfricaTanz could not be found in other ways. AfricaTanz has been stonewalling much of the discussion, largely because, as I pointed out at AN/I, he can't discuss things with other users without being unpleasant. Having said that, I will accept any compromise that includes a GDP figure from a reliable source, without inappropriate personal reflections such as this.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Tanzania discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Race and genetics
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Despite good-faith efforts by all involved, no agreement was reached. Suggest filing a Request for Comment to determine consensus. Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Filed by BlackHades on 20:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC).
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 The article Race and Genetics has a subsection entitled "Lewontin's argument and criticism." in which Lewontin's argument is that race has ‘virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance’. Followed by support and criticism from others. It included criticism by Edwards, followed by Dawkins in which he agreed with Edwards' views against Lewontin. The text in question being: Richard Dawkins (2005) agreed with Edwards' view, summarizing the argument against Lewontin as being, "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance." Aprock has removed Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin six times claiming cherry picking. This is despite the fact that in the cited source Dawkins repeatedly stated Lewontin is wrong. Aprock reasoned by quoting Dawkins that race is difficult to define, in between genetic variance between races is small, and that racial classification is informative about physical characteristics. None of which counters Dawkins' specific criticism of Lewontin. The argument that in between genetic variance between races is small has been acknowledged by both Edwards and Dawkins, and was already clearly stated as such in the article. In regards to Aprock reasons related to physical characteristics, I tried to address this by adding Dawkins' example of why he disagreed with Lewontin using physical characteristics which Aprock still removed again. Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin meets WP:V and is certainly highly relevant to a section entitled “Lewontin's argument and criticism.” I tried to work with Aprock in editing Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin but it seems Aprock is only interested in removal of the text regardless of what form it is in. When Aprock was given the opportunity to edit Dawkins' views on Lewontin the way he would personally want it he refuses. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensively discussed in talk for months. How do you think we can help? Hopefully help Aprock understand why Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin is noteworthy in a section titled "Lewontin's argument and criticism." and work toward putting the reference back in the article. Opening comments by AprockThere's not much to say. We have a clear case of cherry picking. Any sane reading of the chapter "The Grasshopper's Tale" from Dawkins' Ancestor's Tale clearly shows that Dawkins' views on race are that it is not a generically significant attribute. That Dawkins takes issue with a literal interpretation Lewontin's work is only significant when presented in the broader context of the chapter, a suggestion which has yet to be considered by BlackHades and various like minded editors. aprock (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by The Devil's AdvocateI have not participated much in this dispute, but I took the time to read through the chapter as Aprock suggested and I still have to disagree with his claims of "cherry-picking" and "misrepresentation" as I expected I would. Dawkins takes a rather nuanced position, questioning the significance of the criteria we use to distinguish organisms (in fact, the name of the chapter is a reference to how different species of grasshopper are distinguished based on what would seem to be an incredibly trivial difference), but he doesn't reject these classifications like Lewontin. His position is very much that race is a genetically significant attribute and should be used as a classification of people in a scientific context. Naturally, he does not assign it the same significance as early eugenicists and does not approve of it being used in a social or cultural context, but the subject of the article is "race and genetics" not "race and culture" where such a position would be relevant. His position is straightforward that Lewontin is mistaken in characterizing race as an attribute of "virtually" no genetic significance. Dawkins is a qualified academic on the subject human genetics and noting his evaluation of the dispute seems pertinent.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by ArtifexMayhemThe entire Lewontin's argument and criticism is just a coat-rack for cherry-picked material. The proposed Dawkins addition is pov pushing by omission — the pov being, as stated above, that "...race is a genetically significant attribute and should be used as a classification of people in a scientific context". As I previously stated on the talk page Dawkins makes a few other points:
Neither Edwards or Dawkins make the claim that race is a genetically significant attribute. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by 84.61.181.253Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:Race and genetics discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
breakIt's worth observing here that the article is Race and genetics, not Lewontin's Fallacy. To the extent that Dawkin's views merit inclusion here, it's his views on race and genetics which are relevant not his views on a literal interpretation of Lewontin's claims. That the later is being pushed into the article without consideration of the former is a classic example of the sort of misuse of sources that was rife in WP:ARBR&I. aprock (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
break
Just stumbled on this. I'm an uninvolved editor that is familiar with the text in question, and I have to agree with Aprock and Artifex. The quoted material, when taken out of context as it is here presented, does overstate Dawkins' position. The disagreement between Dawkins and Lewontin is over a very fine point. They largely agree with each other. Furthermore, I, like Aprock, was a bit surprised to see this in the present article at all. The article is not about Lewontin. Last of all, a point not yet mentioned though glaringly obvious, is that there is a big problem with parity of sources. Dawkins' non-peer-reviewed popular science book is being used to challange Lewontin's peer-reviewed scientific paper. I have grave reservations about that. For me, that's a sufficient reason not to mention Dawkins' rebuttal at all, regardless of his reputation. That clearly violates WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL. Criticism of peer-reviewed sources must absolutely come from peer-reviewed sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
breakWell, this is interesting. So far we have the following opinions:
Please try this: write up a paragraph saying "here is what I think the best reasons for believing the position that opposes mine are". Post it here without any criticism or rebuttal and wait until your opponent does the same. Then after you do that, repeat with "here are what I think are the best reasons for rejecting my position", once again without rebuttal. Then go back to the normal advocacy of your preferred position. Doing this can be a real eye-opener, break
break
So, the first two methods in the chain of steps listed at WP:DR seem to have failed to resolve the conflict. As usual, I am not offering an opinion as to why this is who is right. The next step would seem to be an WP:RFC. Write up a request for comments, post it and advertise it. If you want to start with a draft version in userspace, I will be happy to go over it and comment on the clarity and structure and where I think you should advertise the RfC. Please note that, unlike DRN or talk page discussions, an RfC can resolve the conflict even if some of those involved do not participate. Once you have the RfC closer saying that the results are to keep the material in or keep it out, whichever of you loses has to accept the result or (after a couple of warnings) be blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
breakHere is an idea I want to throw out: How about taking the specific issue above to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and seeking a second opinion? No need to stop working on it here or on the article talk page, but it might be helpful to get another set of eyes looking at the NPOV question. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
|