Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Menahem Lonzano
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Users involved
Debresser continues to revert "Palestinian" from all pages, including new articles such as Tachlifa the Palestinian. Resolving the dispute
This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism after an Afd on Palestinian rabbi passed as Keep. In that thread, the ony person to oppose use of the term was Debresser.
By explaining to Debresser that the term "Palestinian rabbi" has been accepted by a majority of the community at the Afd discussion and can therefore be used on all relevant pages. Chesdovi (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Menahem Lonzano discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Debresser now extended his non-use of Palestinain to towns! He believes that stating Timnah was a "Palestinian" town is "irrelevant": [13]. He also is remving the word "Palestine" from every article on a Jewish rabbi: [14]. Chesdovi (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Debresser has just referred to the use of the word "Palestine" as "propagana" which quite amazes me. Does he have an impartial view on the matter, as he claims, or does this slip up reveal an admission of a so far denied POV by someone who now seems to be a "pro-Israel" editor? Who else would call use of the word "Palestine" "propaganda"? Chesdovi (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Menahem Lonzano resolutionThe making of this request would appear to violate Chesdovi's topic ban here background here against editing "all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces". Chesdovi's interpretation of this ban to mean only those articles, discussions, and other content specifically about that conflict is currently the subject of a new request for arbitration enforcement against him here. If that request should be determined in his favor, then he should feel free to relist this discussion here, but until then I am going to close it as improperly filed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
|
Boleto
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
SudoGhost argues that the content I wrote was copied and pasted but he fails to point out from where the copy was taken. Users involved
Resolving the dispute
See article discussion page
Decide whether or not the content I wrote violates any copywrites and prevent SudoGhost from deleting it. 187.6.5.140 (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Boleto discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Didn't notify SudoGhost. I have resolved this for you.Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully this is the correct section to reply in, if it isn't, feel free to move it. However, the Boleto article has been plagued with copyright violations introduced by User:Francisco luz since it was created, and half of the page history is revdel'd as a result. The article's talk page is filled with discussions about the user's insertion of copyright violations, and the user has been blocked twice for copyright violations. Each and every edit previously made by User:Francisco luz and the user's sockpuppets have been copyright violations. When 100% of a user's previous edits are copyvios, it makes it unlikely that subsequent edits are not also copyvios, especially when the edit is so similar to previous edits. It is for this reason that I removed the inserted material. It is my understanding that copyright violations are a serious matter, and in that regard, it is better to remove and discuss than to simply leave it there. - SudoGhost 20:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently personal attacks are an important part of the dispute resolution process. - SudoGhost 00:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Ignoring the WP:NPA issue and the possibility of WP:SOCKPUPPETry for a moment, I'll point out to Francisco luz that theirs is the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that their edits are NOT plagiarism or copyright violations, and that such proof is provided by properly citing references. This is doubly true in this case, since the editor in question has a demonstrated history of editing in violation of copyrights, based on their block history. Returning now to the question of sockpuppetry, I'd say it's pertinent because it was the IP user in question that actually opened this discussion. Should it be demonstrated that the IP is not Francisco luz, no harm, no foul. If, however, a Checkuser determines they ARE the same user...well, it wouldn't be the first time someone got hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. Finally, on the matter of WP:NPA, I see the IP user has already received a warning regarding that issue, and hopefully that warning will be heeded. If it isn't, this discussion may well be closed early due to the blocking of the originator. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC) So is there anything we can do to work towards a resolution here? It's been a few days and Francisco luz still hasn't responded in any way, so I'm not sure what needs to be done from this point. - SudoGhost 04:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Boleto resolutionClosed as stale. Feel free to post again if further issues come up. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (road junction lists)
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) (Andy) boldly added a note at MOS:RJL about how to add coordinates in a road junction list. It was removed shortly thereafter by Rschen7754 (talk · contribs), citing no consensus. Among roads editors, consensus has been that since roads are a linear feature and coordinates are single points; the two do not go together well and coordinates should be avoided on roads until there is a good way to handle them. WP:LINEAR, a page which Andy created and Tagishsimon (talk · contribs) has helped draft clearly states there is no consensus in the first sentence, and has since its initial edit. Noting WP:LINEAR, I added a note on an example on the MoS page that does include coordinates. It was removed by Andy and reverted by Rschen (successive edits). Attempts on the part of the roads editors to compromise and have some coordinates in articles have been rebuffed. Users involved
The first two users are from the coordinates project, the rest are from either the U.S. roads project or the Canadian roads project. Resolving the dispute
There have been numerous discussions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates and WT:RJL. Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) took Andy to ANI regarding his reverting Rschen's attempts to close the discussion. ANI's involvement ended by Rschen being told he should have found an uninvolved admin to close the discussion.
We need some people to speak into the situation and restore calm and order, and ensure that a true consensus is obtained and followed. Current discussions are degrading into incivility and personal attacks rather than getting anywhere. If this isn't the right venue, clear guidance on where to go from here would be much appreciated. Rschen7754 05:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (road junction lists) discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Hmm, this is a tricky one. Although I do see some comments that aren't as civil as they could be, it looks like the issues have been discussed in a relatively calm fashion. The discussion also looks fairly comprehensive, and I don't see any clear consensus emerging. I saw the point made that discussing coordinates in MOS:RJL would possibly preempt consensus from the various roads wikiprojects and from the coordinates wikiproject, and I think we should be careful to avoid this. As I see it, there are two ways we could go from here. The first is to open up the debate to a wider forum to try and get more editors participating from the various wikiprojects that are involved, in the hope of estabilishing a broad-based consensus; the other is to stop the debate and go with the status quo of deciding on an article-by-article basis. Which one we go with depends on how palatable they are to the editors involved. Please let me know if you all agree with my take on these discussions. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Section 2The status quo is that there is no bar to adding coordinates to road junction lists. The RJL MoS page has for a long time shown the M5 example. Your attempt to change that has failed, Rschen. How many more fora will you drag us through before you have the good grace to concede? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs)
Section 3I think Rschen7754's idea of stepping back from the more general debate of coordinates for highways articles for a month or so is a good suggestion. It does seem that the discussion was advertised in all the likely places, and while it could be possible to get more editors involved in any further discussion, this would probably take some serious effort. I also see good arguments made for making decisions on a page-by-page basis, as some highways and highway features seem more amenable to coordinates than others. I also agree with Andy that his original edits to WP:RJL have become conflated with the wider coordinates question. Personally I don't see any problem with adding language about coordinates to the page, but to satisfy everyone we should be careful about how we word it. I'm thinking of something along the lines of "there is no consensus on whether to include coordinates in highways articles, and some WikiProjects including the US Roads WikiProject have traditionally advised against including them; however if there is a local consensus to include coordinates you can do it with the {{coord}} template". Would this be an acceptable compromise for everyone? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
[reply to Mr. Stradivarius] Please note my comment above: we have an explicit policies (WP:OWN; WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) that projects can't form their own consensus. Any eventual wording should not imply otherwise. The claim that "some WikiProjects including the US Roads WikiProject have traditionally advised against including them" is also disputed (note request for citations, above). I proposed on WT:RJL that the wording should be:
(which was a compromise reached by several editors, but rejected by Rschen7754) with the addition of a reference to WP:LINEAR and I've seen no good reason given why that should not be the case. The wording which I originally added to RJL was:
and I've seen no good reason why that cannot be used, also. Note the opening "If", which is entirely in keeping with both the current RJL examples and LINEAR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a fundamental of logic that negatives can't be proved; if you wish to claim a point, you prove it true. Still waiting for you to provide evidence of your assertions, requested above; vide:
As soon as you're ready… Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that the discussion over the wording at WP:RJL is becoming too involved for this noticeboard. As a quick resolution is looking less likely, would you all be willing to consider taking this to another mediation forum? My first thought was formal mediation, but I also think an RFC could work if it is limited to this specific issue. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Section 4It might be useful, if the combatants would agree, to go back to first principles and set out the arguments for and against coordinates in RJLs, perhaps as a precursor to bringing in additional eyes. I venture to suggest that we should all edit the following section without signatures such that we capture the essence of the disagreement in as terse a format as possible. We are not seeking, here, to come to a conclusion nor to forge consensus; merely to set out the arguments pro & con. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
1. Location is objectively a primary attribute of a junction
2. Geo-tags enable users to verify information in a table
3. Geo-tags enable users to visit maps, etc, to see the junction
4. ILIKETHEM
5. Allows emission of metadata (microformats, KML) which can be passed to other services/ devices
6. Not causing any problems in articles where currently in use
7. Currently allowed by WP:RJL WP:GEO, WP:LINEAR and MOS:COORDS
8. Inclusion of coordinates in a road article is no bar to being a featured article: Ridge Route
1. Coordinates clutter tables 2. Coordinates make tables too wide
3. There are to many junctions to tag with coordinates
4. IDONTLIKETHEM
5. The US Roads project does not want them; "decided at WT:USRD back in 2008"
6. "certain editors insisted on tagging every single junction in the United States"
7. Tagging junctions will be too much work
8. Editors who want to add coordinates to roads articles have no interest in editing roads articles
9. WP:RJL does not mandate the list of coordinates
I think you greatly misunderstand the point of this noticeboard; it's not to rehash the argument so that there's four subsections. That, and you've mangled half our arguments and presented a bunch of straw man arguments. No, I will not participate in this. --Rschen7754 18:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: Floydian has twice removed others' comments from this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I've been following the discussion over the last few days, and I've come to the conclusion that this dispute is most definitely outside the scope of this noticeboard. After more thought, I am now of the opinion that a mediation cabal case that deals with all of these issues would not have enough structure to help everyone find a resolution. Instead, I suggest having two RFCs: one to decide the specific issue of whether coordinates should be mentioned in WP:RJL and, if so, how it should be worded; and the other to decide the more general issue of whether and in what circumstances coordinates should be used in highways articles. I think this will provide enough structure for the debate, and that it will also avoid confusing the two issues. (Of course, I stand by my earlier post that said further discussion on the general issue may be difficult; it may be that you decide against having a general RFC, but I still think we should be careful not to conflate the two issues.) I think the discussion on this noticeboard has stopped being productive, and as such I will ask an uninvolved clerk to have a look through this discussion and close it if they think that is appropriate. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (road junction lists) resolution
|
Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
There is a debate that is going on within the talk pages on whether it can be debated that mainstream science may have evidence to support the Book of Mormon claims. The initial editor believes that there is no evidence whatsoever within mainstream science, and thus cannot be debated, while I believe that there is (though little) and have provided what I believe to be debatable evidence. We appear to be at a stand off, with neither one feeling comfortable with the others point of view. Users involved
Resolving the dispute
We have had an exceptionally long discussion about this on the talk pages. I have tried to develop different resolutions that would meet both viewpoints and remain NPOV, however cannot seem to reach a consensus with Thucydides411. Both sides have presented extensive expert evidence, according to the bounds that Thucydides411 has specified.
I believe the most benefit would be received from editors who are willing to read the discussion titled 'Archaeological Evidence' on the talk page and would be willing to add their take on whether this topic is debatable or not. I must apologize now, because it has been a lengthy discussion. I know that this is a religious issue, which means that people tend to be very opinionated, however I also believe that most editors believe in maintaining a NPOV and I am hoping that they would be willing to provide their editorial view on the discussion page. I believe this to be a simple dispute, thus this seems the most appropriate noticeboard to request resolution in. Lothimos (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I am a neutral in this dispute. Avanu has posed what I believe to be a cogent suggestion on the article talk page:While I disagree with him that there is no place for criticism on this page (an examination of other beliefs and practices pages will show that some have it and some do not), I do believe in this case that rather than wrangling over the exact language to be used that the current text : could be deleted in lieu of adding a "see also" entry at the beginning of the "Sacred texts" section which would read: Those two articles fully flesh out the debates and the see also line would be less obtrusive than this one element of criticism in an article which is otherwise a straightforward description of LDS beliefs. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC) PS: I just noticed that the editor listing this request here did not notify the other interested parties and I have remedied that deficiency. Sorry that I didn't notice it before making the foregoing post. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I did mention this request in the talk section, however it didn't occur to me at the time to link back to it. Sorry about that. I will remember to do that in the future if the need should arise again. I agree with Avanu, and wish that I would have realized that earlier. It appears from both this page and the talk pages that the majority of the editors involved are comfortable with these suggestions. Thank you for your help. Lothimos (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC) I also agree with TransporterMan's proposed resolution. The articles Genetics and the Book of Mormon and Archaeology and the Book of Mormon provide a good overview of the subject, and are relevant to the Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints resolution
|
Nazism
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
An editor (Darkstar1st), occasionally joined by others, is intentionally soapboxing and trying to destroy the integrity of both the article and the talk page, filling it up with obscure theories, non-RS comments, cherry-picked sentences taken out of context, and then deleting the actual RS in the article. When confronted on this, he talks in circles, and apparently does not understand the concepts of RS or Wikipedia in general, even though he's been a member for some time. I've had enough with him...as he is clinging to these wacky ideas that Nazism=Left Socialism...which is completely opposite of the accepted scholarly view of pretty much every educated person on the planet. He obviously has an agenda, and will not stop until there is some kind of "intervention." I've never had to ask for help like this before...but things are getting way out of hand. Users involved
One user noted that Darkstar1st is also doing this in other related pages, such as Strasserism.
Resolving the dispute
Both I, as well as TFD and Saddhiyama, have attempted to discuss these issues with him, but he is both unwilling and frankly...possibly "unable" to act in a rational manner.
Anything would be great. He's ruining the work of a lot of people, and wasting all of our time by making us go through and undo all of his edits. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Nazism discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
This is what happens when an editor is enamored of a particular source and demands to use it regardless of logic. Hayek's book was highly controversial even at the time (see this critical review for an example) and has very few supporters today. If the article has a section for discussing unorthodox viewpoints, it is not impossible that Hayek could be mentioned. However, citing him as a source of fact in the starting paragraphs is completely unacceptable. WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT both apply. Zerotalk 06:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
For as long as I have been vaguely keeping an eye on some articles related to Fascism and Nazism I have been seeing a regular stream of IP editors and disposable accounts who take it as almost axiomatic that Nazism, and sometimes also fascism, are of the political left. The root of their apparent belief seems to be a non-mainstream understanding of the nature of the concepts of left and right in politics from which they extrapolate their line on Nazism by a mixture of non-mainstream sources and outright original research. Admittedly the concepts of left and right have shifted throughout the history of their use and are not perfectly defined. There is legitimate disagreement on their precise definitions and usage but this attempted radical redefinition of left and right, which turns established usage on its head, is not part of that legitimate disagreement. The editors pushing the POV have been, as far as I can tell, almost exclusively from the USA and it seems to me that there is a deliberate programme of language change going on there which does not seem to be a natural language shift but one driven by an American right wing political agenda. The agenda is to reassign all odious historical movements of the right to the left so that the left is tainted and the right gets to cover itself in flowers and kittens and never admit that it has a dark side, just as all things have. Wikipedia is not meant to be at the vanguard of language change, particularly not one that seeks to encode political assumptions into the language and render existing terminology useless/meaningless in a manner comparable to Orwell's Newspeak. The one thing I have found very hard to work out with the hit and run editors is whether we can assume good faith with them. Are these editors aware that they are engaging in propaganda or have they simply never read any mainstream history about Fascism and Nazism until they stumble over it on Wikipedia? Is somebody pointing them in our direction? The steady stream of IP editors makes me wonder. Each one turns up pushing the same arguments as the last, has the consensus explained to them on the talk page, argues for a bit and then melts away to be replaced by another IP editor. It is a bit of a Groundhog Day experience and it consumes time that we could be spending on more productive things. Intentional or not, it is disruptive to Wikipedia. Looking at this from the outside, in the UK, it is all very bemusing. It is interesting to see some longstanding editors making similar points. I am happy to assume good faith with them although that doesn't stop me regarding OpenFuture's comments above as very fundamentally mistaken. I don't want to pick him apart line by line but he is entirely wrong to suggest that those who disagree with him are all "dogmatic socialists". Mainstream thinkers on the right recognise Nazism and Fascism as the darkest side of the right but as the left has learned to accept that Stalinism and Maoism are the darkest side of the left. I respect his right to hold a non-mainstream opinion but he should read WP:TRUTH. The line on Nazism, which I was taught at school and which is followed by mainstream academics of varying political hues, is that Fascism and Nazism are of the right although they also incorporated some elements from the left. This the line taken by the Nazism article (except when it is being messed up) and is the line it should continue to take as its main thrust, unless academic consensus changes, which is highly unlikely. Notable, non-mainstream views can be included with appropriate weight but must not be over-covered or passed off as mainstream. I suggest that this is where more discussion would be productive, rather than constantly, fruitlessly, revisiting the broad thrust of the article.--DanielRigal (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone - I notice that this thread has been inactive for a few days. Are you still having issues with this? We still may be able to help. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I have now read the talk page, and at the moment it does not seem like a very productive environment for discussion. I tend to agree with the editors above that Darkstar1st is causing disruption on the page, although I do think that he is genuinely trying to improve the article. As I see it, the issue is one of confirmation bias - when you are convinced of something it becomes easy to dismiss evidence that doesn't support your claim, and harder to accept contrasting evidence from others. I have certainly been guilty of this in the past, but of course we want to avoid this type of thing as much as possible on Wikipedia, and just going on as usual doesn't seem like it will help here. Judging from this 2010 ANI report, Darkstar1st's pattern of editing hasn't changed much over the last year. Have you considered opening an RFC/U? That might provide the right venue to air out all of these claims and provide some balanced and considered conclusions on how to proceed. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
This entire discussion is odd - if one reads the talk pages fairly, one will see a bit of "I know what is truth"-ism going on, where Wikipedia, for good or ill, looks only at whether a claim is verifiable as being published in a WP:RS. Several editors seem to think if they state a source is "fringe" (mainlybecause it contradicts what they are absolutely certain of) that therefore such a source can not be used unledd clearly marked "loony." So far, I have not found WP:Loony source at all -- and I fear that those who so insist on labelling sourced they do not like is the main problem here. In the case at hand, there is strong and convincing evidence that reliable sources claim the National Socialists did, indeed, have a strong socialist platform from 1923 (formation of what was later called "Nazi") to about 1933, but that somehow the socialist part was put on the "back burner" upon accession to power. But some editors assert the OED was wrong in setting the date before 1931 for the term "National Socialist" <g>) Mainly on the basis of what they know to be the truth. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
If there's no objection, I'd like to close this thread. I think this particular dispute is of too wide a scope for this noticeboard to handle efficiently, as there appear to be multiple issues - some conduct issues, and multiple content issues. I mentioned RFC/U above, and I still think this would be a good venue to air the conduct issues. However, after some more thought, I also think the content issues would benefit from being clearly identified and undergoing mediation separately. Steven Zhang has said that he will mediate informally on the talk page, and this seems like a good next step to me. I'll also keep an eye on the page myself, and I'll close this thread later on today unless anyone really wants it to stay open. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Nazism resolution
|
United States - foreign relations and military
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
The following is from the 'Discussion page' Firstly, I would like to say thank you for acknowledging the said work that I have provided and therefore am quit pleased that information, properly sourced, can be shared for the whole world. Secondly, I'm not so sure that we had agreed to to fixing the issue and am therefore quiet surprised that you had gone ahead and added information without our mutual agreement. As you had quoted above that with all editing articles, "to discuss the matter here and abide by the consensus that develops over whether the addition should be made", I would have to oppose your work which you have included without my "consensus". In addition, you mentioned in your above correspondences "The weight given to Philippine-U.S. relations in the addition was clearly undue and disproportionate to the other countries mentioned" but as I have mentioned earlier, "I have shared the same amount of information relating to the History between the PI and the States as with the UK and the States". Continuing on, you mention in your above corresondences that the small section has "unchallenged edits to the article in the interim which your edits inappropriately erase". I suggest that since my portion is appropriately 'referenced' that it be at the fron of the 'unchallenged" portion so as not to confuse the readers about the sources used should they decide to look it up and only find information pertaining to the US-Philippine' history which does NOT include the countries seemed favoured by yourself to be ahead of a perfectly well referenced source with the word 'Philippines'. To conclude, I have forwarded this argument and discussion page to wikipedia editing forums so I can also understand why it is that, in your view and clearly shown in the above correspndances, that you seem to want to disregard the relationship that the Philippines and the US has which does stem prior to WW2 and also runs deep with what is the 'Golden Age' of US politics and foreign relations. --Zabararmon (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Users involved
It has come to my attention that DCGeist has been trying to exclude information regarding the above, referenced country and gone against what he has said I should do which is to follow a 'Consensus'. I was shocked to find my referenced contribution to be added a) Without my 'Consensus' as he likes to put it b) It was added in an area which he says should not be touched, repeatedly, by myself as it is 'unchallenged' however I find not only my referenced contribution right in the middle of the unchallenged article, but without my 'Consensus'. c) It also clearly states in your disputes page for people to go 'Cool and easy' towards new users but judging by his tone above its sounds rather offensive and un-professional of an editor that is to keep an unbiased, cool minded view of articles for editing. Can someone please look into this, please? Resolving the dispute
I have tried to resolve the dispute in the discussion page but it seems that mr DCGeist can't seem to agree with a 'Consensus' and goes ahead to edit the article.......
Please check that I have done the correct thing and answer my question to see if my editing the referenced Philippines portion towards the fron of the "unchallenged" contribution of countries is appropriate. It seems that Mr DCGeist has a habit of not going ahead with his arranged agreement as mentioned in the 'Discussion' page. I am not about favouritism but I am about facts. I have provided academically, referenced facts that are being challenged and thrown about inappropriately. I do not wish to exclude other countries, but I have provided my referencing regarding the Philippines relationship just like someone has provided referencing relating to the UK. It would not be fair for my refereneced article to be thrown in the middle of an "unchallenged" piece of contribution that Mr DCGeist has mentioned is inappropriate, in the discussion page. Zabararmon (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC) United States - foreign relations and military discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. One very important point: The basic assumption stated above—that I "seem to want to disregard the relationship that the Philippines and the US [have]"—is obviously false, as I agreed to and facilitated the inclusion of the Philippines in the relevant passage of the United States article. Aside from that, I believe the thread in the article's Talk page speaks for itself. I'll monitor this dispute resolution thread for input from third parties.—DCGeist (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
DCGeist, it seems we are at a complete disagreement and your arguments are a failure at best.
Please, have a much better argument than that, as its extremely weak. The population of the Philippines is 94 million, the combined population of Canada and Australia is 70 Million. English is one of the official languages in the PI with 93% (UN statistics) speaking the language, introduced and indoctrinated by the former colonial masters, the US. Your justifications seem very racially biased. I will not adjust this article at all and will, once again post these arguments on the notice board as referred above. I'm amazed that for a credible 'editor' you're not looking at the arguments objectively as the debate I have created can't be easily argued by yourself. I will also ask a few, more credible, editors to view this and will await their answers. Till then, I too wish you luck with editing and hope we can come to a more, realistic and 'educated' decision on this said article. --Zabararmon (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabararmon (talk • contribs) Mr. Stadivarius. In repect to him being impolie, it was in reference to a personal email we sent each other initially when I didn't know how to 'Discuss' or use the 'talk page'. but that has nothing to do with this article and should be ignored. Furthermore, after looking at your profile on wiki, I have come to realise that you're a language teacher in Japan. Thats great and I hope to give more to humanity when I complete my post grad studies. Moving on, I ask that you look into the current argument and double check my UN references regarding english spoken in the PI. If I am mistaken, please feel free to correct me. It is unfortunate that I had chosen the United states as my first article, however, I find it important to contribute facts and referenced sources. I have no quarrel with other countries at all as I have stated in previous discussions. My only quarrel is the constant evasion and excuses by DCGeist. Please refer to my reason for putting the Philippines infront of the other countries, above. Thanks for your input and hope that I have more clarity on this subject. -- [User:Zabararmon|Zabararmon]] (talk • contribs 12:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
United States - foreign relations and military resolution
|
Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
I have tried to make this article more accurate by showing there are two sides to the information being presented. Each edit I made was reversed. I made adjustments to my revisions which included providing citations. This was met by calling my citations conspiracy theory. I then attempted to edit a singular opinionated phrase "poorly defined" used to describe the title of the entry. This too was reverted, and now the page is locked due to waring. All I want is for a fair account of what is going on in this country concerning this topic. Yes it is divided. But let's get both sides fairly represented. The comments made on the talk page for this entry tell it all.
Resolving the dispute
Discussed on talk page and saw plenty of other posts concerning similar feeling.
Not sure. It seems some people are only willing to have it their way. I am perfectly happy for both sides to be equally represented. I can't see anything unfair about that. Nutritiondr (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Bio-Identical Hormone Replacement Therapy discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Off-topic comment hidden, please do not import unrelated disputes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC) <span id="Off-topic comment hidden, please do not import unrelated disputes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)">
Funny I think people here are free to decide if the comment is germane or not. But your actions despite being an involved party pretty much highlight the concern. Lambanog (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Just we are clear, how many MEDICAL sources would you like me to cite to clear the undue weight issue? Give me the parameters of what will be acceptable and I will deliver. There is that much out there to chose from. Also, I think we need to decide how to weigh a published medical study which delivers facts against a published opinion which does not.Nutritiondr (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I have a full study, published in 2009, citing over 200 other studies, finding bio-identical hormones are safer than synthetics. Anyone want to fish through all of it and get something together? Nutritiondr (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Bio-Identical Hormone Replacement Therapy resolution
|
Digital Signage Text but my reference keeps being removed
Closed discussion |
---|
Digital signage // content
Dispute overview
I added some text to digital signage on Wikipedia The text is below There are methods for creating content for digital signage and certain guidelines to try to follow. Tips for creating Digital Signage Content. Here are some tips which can aid people in coming up with the relevant content for their digital signs: 1.It is first essential to choose the right color scheme in order to make the content on the electronic screens cohesive. The colors can be selected by first looking at the location where the digital signs are posted. People can make note of prominent colors and then choose one which would complement the location. 2.The second step is opting for attractive yet easy to read fonts for text as well as headings on the signs. To ensure that all the content meshes together and is consistent, people should use the same text style for all digital signage content. 3.The third step is deciding the size of the font. People should test out different sizes on the smallest monitor or screen they will be using for their digital signs. People should select the font which can be read from a distance even on the smallest screens and should select that size or larger if desired. 4.The next step is to make a list of the information and messages you wish to convey in your advertisement. After making the list, people can write short sentences regarding each topic. All the sentences and messages should be short and easily understandable. A longer message can be broken into short sentences which can be displayed in sequence. Different content creation tools are available which can aid in coming up with suitable content for your digital signage. 5.Now people have to select images which are suitable for the topics that are mentioned in the content. This image should have a separate portion for graphics and texts so that each can be displayed easily. With light backgrounds, people can choose dark fonts and vice versa. Image editing software can also be utilized if any problem in including the text. 6.All the pieces of the content are then scheduled on the play list and the images are set to fade out when each image leaves the screen. This was written by myself and is my own work from my website http://www.resusdigitalsignage.com blog I added the refernce at the bottom to the blog post on the website this keeps being removed, i dont mind having my information on Wikipedia but i would like some reference to the page it came from. The link to the text that i wrote is here on my website http://www.resusdigitalsignage.com/digitalsignageblog/?p=517 Kind Regards Tim Warrington Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
As been as the text is being used on Wikipedia i would like to know how i can put a reference to my website on this page as the text did originate from http://www.resusdigitalsignage.com/digitalsignageblog/?p=517 Timwoz (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Digital signage // content discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Denver - Radioactive contamination
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Entire deletion of heavily researched and cited section by User:Orlady without discussion. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Not possible. User:Orlady has semi-protected the article.
I am merely seeking an honest and independent review of the situation, without prejudice. The more, the merrier...I'm very confident that the impact of Rocky Flats on Denver is quite substantial and substantiated. The focus of this section is on the effects on Denver, and should remain for all to see. FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Denver - Radioactive contamination discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I see no discussion about this on the Denver talk page about this. Discussions MUST start there, then move to this noticeboard only if there is still a stalemate. The talk page is NOT protected. I recommend this be closed and the editor directed to begin a discussion about this on the article talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Denver - Radioactive contamination
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Sub-article has, IMHO, been abusively deleted in its entirety by admin Orlady. Users involved
Other IP addresses involved are acknowledged to be mine. I've never indicated otherwise. Started editing from home IP address. Created this ID. Thunderstorm knocked out Internet access; when it was restored, I had a new IP address, not of my own making. Sometimes I log in, sometimes I don't...not really relevant to the matter at hand, but Orlady has brought this up for some reason, so I want to address it forthright.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Yes. After addressing the fact that Orlady has deleted a great deal of very valid, very truthful, very cited information regarding plutonium (24,000-year half-life) contamination of Denver that the article otherwise completely ignores, I asked her/him to restore the section pending additional edits and public comment. This has been refused as indicated by inaction or reply, and so we appear to be deadlocked. Moreover, she/he has made NPOV claims regarding my edits. As stated in my reply to her/him, I don't know of a positive way to put a spin on plutonium contamination of a multi-million person metropolitan area...so my edits are strongly focused on the facts at hand. The article as it exists is lacking NPOV, as it completely disregards Rocky Flats long-lasting plutonium effects on Denver, the subject at hand.
All I'm seeking is an honest review by outside parties. If I'm in the wrong on this, I'll take my medicine...but it's appalling to me that the subsection was deleted in its entirety with neither prior discussion nor merit. Plutonium exists in the Denver area. I didn't put it there. But I will work to the best of my ability to intelligently communicate what happened and what it portends. FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Denver - Radioactive contamination discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Discussion has only just started on the talk page. This is FAR too pre-mature, and should be closed AGAIN. FormerNukeSubmariner, this noticeboard should be used only after there has been discussion on the talk page. Not before or in place of. You've just been trying to edit war your changes into the article, and posted here when you couldn't get your way. That's NOT how Wikipedia works. A core part of editing is the WP:BRD cycle - Bold edits get Reverted, then Discussed on the article talk page. Please return here only after discussion has happened on the talk page. Again, recommend this be closed as no discussion has happened on the talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC) You're not recognizing the fact that Orlady had stonewalled comments until virtually forced to do so. We're not living on the same time-line...that simple. I am making no 'Bold' claims whatsoever...Rocky Flats contaminated Denver with plutonium beginning in 1957 in a major way. How long does the Denver article have to wait to mention how this happened and the harsh facts behind it? I'll hold off for now, but as plainly stated all I have asked for is an honest outside review of the situation, and in return I get a hectoring response. I'm unimpressed with the process...just plainly speaking. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC) P.S. A simple (but currently suppressed on Denver) visual aid in this situation that speaks more than the proverbial 1,000 words: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/rf/charta.htm --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
One more comment for now is in regard to Ravensfire's mis-aimed fire regarding "edit warring." In the article in question, I edit warred with no one. I did revert ONE person, twice, who was deleting the section on the highly specious observation that "Rocky Flats is not in Denver." This is a clearly absurd comment, given the undeniable contamination of Denver with plutonium, but also one repeated by Orlady in her rationale for deleting the entire subsection. As Orlady stopped all related involvement by semi-protecting the article, I was not even offered the courtesy of an opportunity to edit war -- or, better, simply evolve the section -- with her. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok I've looked at the issue and have a few policy acronyms I wanted to raise
In my opinion, Orlady is quite right to bring up the issue of undue weight with regard to the material you wrote. If there are enough reliable sources that document the contamination in Denver, then I wouldn't mind maybe inserting a sentence about it in the article. Several paragraphs seems to be giving it far too much weight to me, however. This probably wasn't what you were hoping to hear, but I hope this reply helps. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC) First and foremost, I do appreciate the inputs here. Thank you. Simply put, the issue at-hand is the contamination of **Denver**...not Rocky Flats, which was 'merely' the source of the plutonium contamination. Look at the map! This Pu contamination is hardly a minor or tangential point for Denver, and quite clearly has been involved in the death of an 11 year-old girl who was six miles downwind of Rocky Flats during the 1969 fire (the less plutonium-producing fire) which is definitely in Denver's suburbs. Read the entire subarticle, please. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC) "If there are enough reliable sources that document the contamination in Denver, then I wouldn't mind maybe inserting a sentence about it in the article. " Okay...that's easy and documented in the article. Thank you for your support. As an important aside, did you read that the both the lead FBI investigator in the Rocky Flats raid AND the foreman of the grand jury have brought up the suppression of contamination information by the government? This is real, folks. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Valerie Sinason
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
The dispute is over neutral point of view on satanic ritual abuse. I rewrote the entry on Valerie Sinason to make it more neutral. Instead the article reverted with the comment to me: "Your edits to Valerie Sinason had, as a an end result, the promotion of fringe beliefs. This is contrary to WP:NPOV policy in general and WP:FRINGE specifically" The original article says: "Satanic ritual abuse is now considered to be a moral panic." This is not a NPOV but an opinion argued in the books cited. I tried to give both sides, the clinical view being that satanic ritual abuse is reported by clients to hundres of clinicians. A neutral point of view needs to include both sides. I believe the article I re-wrote does this fairly. Instead I am told that putting the clinical point of view supports fringe beliefs as if the moral panic view is universally accepted as proven. This is not a NPOV in my opinion and I do not understand why wiki is accepting it as such. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
109.156.16.175 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Valerie Sinason discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) convention was created by several of the most active editors and administrators working on aviation and aircraft articles. The naming convention it recommends came into common usage in the United States in the mid-1920s. It is not a standard that can be applied regularly to foreign or experimental aircraft. While the page states that there are exceptions to this rule, the editors responsible have begun enforcing this rule on aircraft that fall outside this naming standard. In doing so they are recommending by consensus that aircraft names be changed from their official name (as cited in official documentation) to a new name that conforms with this naming convention. A perfect example of this problem is the current discussion about the name of the Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1. All official U.S. government documents for the aircraft identify it solely as the Barling Bomber NBL-1, P-303. Barling was the designer, not the manufacturer, so the aircraft's official name does not conform to the naming convention. As a result the editors are recommending by consensus that the aircraft be renamed the Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1, a completely fictitious name, but one that conforms to their naming convention. The deliberate falsification of information on Wikipedia is a very distressing problem, and one that should be addressed immediately. No editor or administrator should create any naming convention that encourages editors to create false names for an object. I request that the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) be removed, and that no further naming convention be recommended aside from the use of the most appropriately name as determined by careful examination of the available documentation. Users involved
Resolving the dispute
The issue has become apparent based on comments contained in the current "Requested move/dated|Barling Bomber" talk. It was there that it was stated that the naming of aircraft will be kept to the standard of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), even it that means changing the aircraft's actual name, as determined using Wikipedia:Verifiability. In this case, I obtained a scan of the aircraft's original 1926 War Department test specifications report book, which identified the aircraft only as the Barling NBL-1, P-303. Despite this, the editors involved have selected to name the aircraft the Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 to conform to their Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). When a naming convention forces the creation of a purely fictious name the naming convention must be eliminated.
I am requesting a review of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), as well as its application to the "Requested move/dated|Barling Bomber" talk. I request that the review be made by unbiased uninvolved administrators familiar with the Wikipedia standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability and published by a reliable source to determine if the naming convention encourages the creation of fictious names. Ravensfire (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I am a neutral in regard to this dispute.
Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Post script: Just a word about the specific request made under "How do you think we can help?" While some of the mediators who work at this noticeboard may happen to be administrators, most of us — including me — are just regular editors. At that, administrators have no more right to review policy or guidelines than any other editor. Policies and guidelines are established and modified by the consensus of the community and the only folks other than the community who have the right to change or remove them are the Wikimedia Foundation and, in keeping with the Wiki principle, they will not ordinarily do so except in extreme circumstances which threaten the existence or legal well-being of the encyclopedia. As for your request that multiple mediators review this, you are of course welcome to wait to see if anyone other than me weighs in and to reject my opinion altogether if it turns out that I'm the only one who does so, but the way dispute resolution is going these days I wouldn't necessarily hold my breath until that happens. One way to try to attract additional editors to weigh in on the dispute is to make a request for comments at the article and/or guideline talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
@Ken keisel. If you believe that the naming convention is wrong you are free to try to get it changed, but until and if you can the consensus of the community is that it is the way that it is supposed to be done. You can say that the result the naming convention gives in this case is wrong, false, fictional, or the words of Satan himself, but unless you can change the mind of the community through obtaining a new consensus about the convention or through obtaining an IAR local exception though consensus in this particular case you're just spitting into the wind. You've not attempted the former and the current consensus at the article is clearly against you. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 resolution
|
Femme Fatale Tour
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
User:Itsbydesign started removing from the Femme Fatale Tour the setlist of Nicki Minaj on August 19th [25], arguing that "What Minaj performed (or who with) is not notable as Spears is the main subject of the article. Information is more relevant for Minaj's article." I disagreed, since the focus of the article is the tour (not Spears), and Minaj is a big part of it: some critics dedicated several paragraphs of their reviews to Minaj [26][27] and she is even included in the official poster. I reverted his edits and said that he should open a discussion on the article's talk page so we could discuss it with other editors. He refused, and since then he has removed the setlist three more times. [28] [29] [30] Each time I reverted it and asked him to open a discussion. Today, he made a major change in the article in which he made strange prose changes ("howver"), added sources already present in the article to the lead, removed Minaj's setlist again and removed additional notes, among other things. I reverted his edit and placed a notice on his talk page. He responded by explaining all his edits at last on my talk page, saying that "This is the final time I will tolerate you reverting edits with a a clear and reasonable explanation. Next revert will automatically result an in open case with the Administrator's Noticeboard, no questions asked." Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I've already told him to open a discussion many times, but he keeps reverting the edits.
Itsbydesign should understand that as a Wikipedia editor he should not feel ownership over an article. He should also be open to discussion. Xwomanizerx (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Femme Fatale Tour discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Origin of the Azeris
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Me and user:Arslanteginghazi are having a bit of a dispute about the article.The references in the article does not say the conclusions that Arslanteginghazi includes in the article , but he believes it is correct for him to include his own understanding to the article and labile them as written in the sources . I think we need assistance in resolving our problem . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Users involved
Resolving the dispute
We used the talk page . And we both compliant to Administrator intervention against vandalism [31] and [32].
Please explain for this user that in Wikipedia , we are not free to add our own understanding or our own conclusion making to the article . We may not continue our discussion in the reference section (footnote) of the article and that when we cite a reference in an article , that means we have to use the sentences , conclusions and ideas of that source , and nothing out of it . Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Origin of the Azeris discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The user "Alborz Fallah" gives this as ref : http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html . there is written : "Y-DNA haplogroup R-M207 is believed to have arisen approximately 27,000 years ago in Asia. The two currently defined subclades are R1 and R2." but "Alborz Fallah" writes in the text : "Haplogroup R (Y-DNA) , believed to have arisen on the Eurasian Steppe or the Indus-valle" and also "Alborz Fallah" gives to sentences a special meaning by changing the formation of sentences ( Ambiguity in meaning ) . all of my texts are mentioned in the refs but "Alborz Fallah" change them to the texts that are mentioned in ref but there is no relation Between the text and article. for example the haplogroup R is mentioned in article but "Alborz Fallah" writes the text about sub group R1a : here . --Arslanteginghazi (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC) You didn't notify the user, I have taken care of this for you. Hasteur (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Hi there, sorry for the late response to this. Although the discussion has become quite heated on the talk page, it looks like you have both been acting in good faith, and providing references for your edits. I have a couple of things to say about the references; the first is that Wikipedia needs references to be reliable. Arslanteginghazi, I see that the references you added included a Blogspot blog and a Wikipedia article. Neither of these qualify as a reliable source, because there is no guarantee of any independent fact-checking in them. Also I see you have referenced one sentence to "Ibn Miskawayh (932-1030) - tajarebul umam", "Abu Muhammad 'Abd al-Malik bin Hisham 833CE "kitab ut tijan"", and "hamzah al-isfahaniy 961ce". These people lived more than 1000 years ago and can't really be said to represent modern scholarship on the issue, although perhaps you intended these as footnotes, rather than references? Then there is the claim of the genetic origin of the Azeris. I am no expert in genetics, but it does look like Arslanteginghazi is making his own interpretation of the source. On Wikipedia we have a policy of not allowing any original research. This means that making your own conclusion based on a source is not allowed, and it also means that you cannot link the arguments of two different sources to create your own synthesis. Especially for claims of a scientific nature, it is important to stick to these rules. I would also add that you should really use reviews, not just individual studies, in order to best represent the scientific consensus. Arslanteginghazi, please let me know if this makes sense to you, and if you have any other questions, you can ask them below. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Pardon for my delay in responding . I think our main problem here is more about Wikipedia policies than genetic issues . That would be useful if other users explain for the user Arslanteginghazi that A- If we disagree about a mere sentence , we should not revert all the editions (whole text)in several times (edit war) . B-It is not accepted to discuss about our opinion in the reference section of the article . C-We may not include our understanding of a source as written in the cited reference (Original research ) . D-Style of writing includes using upper case letter in the beginning of the names . E- It is not possible in Wikipedian logic to add among two article and conclude a result among them (Synthesis OR). D-We are not allowed to give weight to one side of the item and neglect other aspects of that. In brief , user Arslanteginghazi has the prejudice that I want to change the article in a way that to pretend the Origin of the Azeris is from the Aryan race . I did my very best to show him that neither so called Aryan race exists , nor it has any genetic markers. That is also true about other genetic markers and if a genetic factor is now more prevalent in a special geographic area that does not means it has any connection to 10000 years ago. Simply , user Arslanteginghazi does not reads my changes , he reverts them all ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Origin of the Azeris resolution
|
El Capitan High School, 7-Eleven, Liberty Charter High School (La Mesa, California)
Closed discussion |
---|
Note: ^^^ For these articles, look at the infoboxes, not so much the article itself. Dispute overview
User:Jojutton is removing the term United States or U.S. from infoboxes on a few pages. Guidelines often state when giving a location of a school, company, or other establishment, to include its city, state and country. For instance, the infobox:secondary school template has a strange format. If you leave out the country field, then there is this ugly {{{country}}} symbol inside the box. Also, if it is left blank, it would look like this. Los Angeles, California, < note the comma hanging out of place. Just click the articles on the schools and you will see what I mean. I and several other editors have had trouble with this user before a while ago, which stirred up quite a debate on removing this information. He said he would stop removing this, but it is pretty clear he did not live up to his word. Template:infobox company clearly states for location field: city, state and country, as I have given in my edit summary. Users involved
Yes. Resolving the dispute
I offered to solve the issue on the 7-Eleven talk page, but User:Jojhutton undid my edit without any discussion or consensus. He often states that WP:Place explains that U.S. or Canada or any nation is not necessary. But he has been told in the past, that he misinterpreted this and continues to edit this way.
To possibly explain to this user that more information that is given on a page, is better. The Template:infobox secondary school seems that if the country is not given, then the text looks strange, as I mentioned above. To keep this site consistent and not contradicting, almost every article with an infobox has in the location field, the city, state, country/or city and country (examples: Wawa Inc., Apple, Inc., J. C. Penney, etc, and hundreds more). I was actually guilty of removing the term United States/USA from pages long ago, and another editor snapped and said this was wrong. So, I am just going with what I know and what I see. I have been on this site for over 2 years. See this dispute which is relevant: [33] Tinton5 (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC) El Capitan High School, 7-Eleven, Liberty Charter High School (La Mesa, California) discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Hi Tinton5, and thanks for posting here. The first thing I see is that there hasn't been any talk page discussion about this issue, although I admit, it's not obvious where the discussion should take place. I'm afraid we really can't take on disputes without there being some form of talk page discussion. I suggest starting a new thread on Jojhutton's talk page, and if that stalls then maybe a thread at Template talk:Infobox company would do the trick. If you're still having issues after that, then by all means post back here. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Ultimate Ears
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Me and Binksternet are having a dispute about having the photo of the founder being displayed on the Ultimate Ears company article. My argument is that the photo is already embedded on the founders biographical page. Further the photo does not follow a standard corporate design practice on Wikipedia, for example Apple Inc. does not include a photo of Steve Jobs on the Apple Inc. article. Binksternet has disputed my edits by saying "he cannot understand why anyone would consider an image of the founder as not appropriate for a company article" and detailing why a founder's image would not be included would be "no freely licensed public domain ones, and editor consensus against having one." My suggestion (Binksternet did not attempt a compromise) was to reference the fact that 9 out of the top 10 of the Fortune 500 has NO photo of the founder in their articles; Ford Motor Company is the one with a photo, of course!!! Users involved
AMuteRealist does have WP:COI and followed Wikipedia protocol for WP:COI after being directed by Binksternet
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
I have tried resolving the issue with Binksternet on the article talk page, but I need some extra input as Binksternet will not compromise or make proposals to move forward with resolving this dispute.
Direct me to ways to resolve this dispute, or where I can get assistance in resolving the dispute. We either need to come up with a compromise or have a defined protocol for photos of founders in non biographical articles. AMuteRealist (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Ultimate Ears discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The photo of the founder is a good one, showing him in his element as a touring sound engineer and promoter of Ultimate Ears, wearing casual clothing and a backstage pass. The image was first brought to the UE article in July by User:MusicLover650. At the article talk page, I argued that the image was appropriate, and that other company articles have photos of their founders, including Sony, Ford Motor Company, Amazon.com, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, United Artists, Steinway & Sons, Hermès, Sears, Microsoft and Google. Nothing about the image is a violation of Wikipedia policies. Because I have read the article's references, I understand this dispute as one that has moved with AMuteRealist, 70.165.46.98, Theaveiator and Ultimateears1 into Wikipedia. The company is now led by Bob Allison, who, according to Stereophile magazine, financed a significant expansion program for UE, served as president for about three years, then coordinated a 2007 buyout of Mindy Harvey as Jerry Harvey "retired" (scare quotes in the original.) A newspaper story quoted Harvey saying of Allison, "As soon as the investor thought that I was out of ideas, he thought it would be a good time to maximize his position in the company by forcing the founder out." A professional audio news site reported that Jerry Harvey was, "forced out in 2007 by co-owner/ex-wife Mindy and a third party investor" (Bob Allison). This same source says Jerry Harvey's "relationship with UE began to go south" around the time he was being forced out. Note that there is no dispute about this text and these sources. Relevant to the image, the current leadership of the expanded Ultimate Ears company apparently does not like the man Jerry Harvey, even though he will forever be the founder. Me, I don't care about the bad feelings; I don't have a horse in that race. I think the founder's image is a perfectly suitable focus to draw readers' attention to text describing the company's history. I think the image should stay. Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Chiemgau impact hypothesis, Tüttensee
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Unfortunately we would need help from someone with excellent command in German, as all publications on the issues are in German language only. And I would prefer someone with understanding in earth sciences, such as geology. In 2004 a self selected group of amateurs and professionals raised a fascinating claim over the impact of a meteor in the Bavarian Chiemgau region in holocene times, most prominently that the small, idyllic Tüttensee (Lake Tütten) would be an impact crater. It gave some stirrings in the scientific community, but in 2005 the claims were refuted by the Bavarian state agency for the environment, which is a scientific body dealing with geology in Bavaria. In 2008 and in 2010 further research got published by the state agency, in 2010 they took auger soil samples from the Tüttensee and established undisturbed horizons of peat bog, covering more than 12.500 years (established by radiocarbon dating), with means the growth of sphagnum peat was uninterrupted since the last ice age. This excludes any impact of anything, and certainly of any meteor to create the lake. The 2005 publications and any previous scientific work on the area going back to the 1920s is consistent with the Lake being one of many kettles under the alpine foothills. Especially the gravel terraces that form a horseshoe structure around most parts of the lake are well established to be kames terraces, deposited by a lobus of the Inn/Chiemgau glacier around a relict of dead ice. There is absolutely no indication that those partially rings are anything else, and certainly they don't have the structure of material ejected from an impact. An open letter by some 30 most respected scientists in several earth sciences got published earlier this year to finally end any doubts, from a scientific point of view, it is over. The promoters of the impact hypothesis have since joined forces with tourism interests in the region and managed to convince the local municipality to set up an interpretive walk and they opened on their own a small museum. So this is not a scientific debate anymore (which would be closed after the radiocarbon dates), but has become a matter of deep shaming and humiliation for the municipality, the tourism agency and the promoters of the claims. The latter have since changed their theory numerous times, frantically updated their website usually contradicting their previous theories. The dating of the impact according to them changed from about 200 BC to 800 BC and in their latest claims it happened in the bronze age around 2000 BC (all of those ages are of course completely in contradiction with the peat horizons going back 12.500 year without disturbance). There are more claims, regarding rematogylphs, breccias and some other rock types, none of which are any more convincing than the Tüttensee claim, so I won't specify any of that. Users involved
User:Sina03 is a single purpose account, active only to promote his or her view on the Chiemgau impact hypothesis.
Yes
Resolving the dispute
This controversy swaps over from the German language Wikipedia. Her on en-WP we used the talk page of the impact hypothesis article. And we had some further contact on the German language Wikipedia (in German only).
The basic question is: Sina tries to present the matter as an open scientific debate, giving space to the presentation of the impact claims. I have cut through all that, moved the article to the hypothesis lemma, called the case closed from a scientific point of view and put it in the Obsolete scientific theories category. Sina reverts that, which happens to be the only edits he or she ever does. To stop the unavoidable, maybe already ongoing edit war, we should need outside intervention. h-stt !? 08:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Chiemgau impact hypothesis, Tüttensee discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. What a mess. A scientific dispute conducted via press releases. Overall, the credentials of the CIRT are not very convincing, except for those of de:Kord Ernstson, who also supports the theory of the Azuara impact structure. Given how science reporting works, we should not hold CIRT responsible for the media's fantastic embellisments of their claims. As one would expect, the popular media tend to side with the proposed sensational event rather than its claimed refutations. On the other hand, these refutations from scientists (2011 Bavarian office for the environment -- LfU, 2006 open letter from 21 scientists) seem to carry more weight, even though they, too, have not gone through peer review. To gauge the relative credibility of the two sides, I have looked a bit closer at the details of the dispute. CIRT claims that the small Lake Tütten is one of many impact craters going back to the same event. On balance, it appears to me that the theory is more likely false than true, but not completely dead yet, either in terms of scientific or public discourse. As long as it captivates the general public in the way it is currently still doing, it is not an obsolete theory and should not be categorised as such. Our articles should make it clear that the theory does not have much support, but I think it would not be appropriate to treat it as fringe. The dispute should be reported fairly and in sufficient detail. I will watchlist the article and may get involved w.r.t. concrete problems. Hans Adler 11:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to all of you for discussing. I have adjusted my version of the article "Chiemgau impact hypothesis" according to your suggestions by extending the introduction of the debate passage. Hope this will be a good compromise. --Sina03 (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Sorry for being here again: A user "Kunderbunt" who support H-sst has again reverted the "Chiemgau impact hypothesis" articel without giving an explanation for not accepting the compromise. What to do? --Sina03 (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
A fundamental problemA fundamental problem I see here is that this is a classic "teach the controversy" article. It is clear that no scientific body has treated this hypothesis as a formal theory, so as per WP:FRINGE neither should we. The only scientific opinion refuting the claim expressly comes from the Bavarian state agency and an open letter, who must be given WP:UNDUE balance. Based on these principles, the fundamental issue I see with this article is:
--Cerejota (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I can only mention that this is an absurd debate. Obviously nobody wants to acknowledge that there do exist peer-reviewed publications concerning the subject of a meteorite impact in the Chiemgau region. Look at my version of the "Chiemgau impact hypothesis" of September 3 and you will see it. Every contrary statement is a document of prejudice. --Sina03 (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
|