Archive 90 | ← | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | → | Archive 100 |
Talk:2012 Benghazi_attack
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I would appreciate some support in the Benghazi article for including an image of the Rhodes’ email secured by Judicial Watch by lawsuit under the provisions of FOIA. I enumerated my reasons for including the imaging in “Talk” under “Judicial Watch”. Mark Miller and NorthBySouthBaranof have deleted the image without discussion in the ”Talk” section and only stated their reasons in their edit summaries: e.g., “image wastes space” or the surreptitious “replacing image with previously removed image” that he had previously removed. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I posted valid reasons for including the image in the "Talk" (Judicial Watch) section. They did not. How do you think we can help? This image is of a document that is central to an ongoing Congressional investigation pertaining to Benghazi, and it should be included for the benefit of those using Wiki as a reference. I want this issue reviewed and decided by others not currently involved in this exchange. Summary of dispute by Mark MillerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by NorthBySouthBaranofPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is rather premature given the lack of discussion on the talk page - there has never been a consensus for the inclusion of the image, several editors objected to it for various reasons and the above editor is the only one who has clearly expressed the opinion that it should be included. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:2012 Benghazi_attack discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Nikola Tesla
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Filed by Atlantictire on 22:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
My initial issue was that the Nikola Tesla lead ought to be more like the Thomas Edison lead, that is written for a general audience not already obsessed with Tesla and electronics. Soon, however, efforts to fix up the lead devolved into quibbling over facts: Tesla's importance in the so-called War of Currents, the extent to which Tesla can be credited with having invented the first practical AC motor, Tesla's contributions regarding wireless technology and radio, etc. I'll just say I had no special interest in Tesla only 2 weeks ago. I like to copyedit electronics-related articles so that 6th graders can at least understand the lead. My objective was that people who come to this page understand fairly easily why people still care about Tesla, and why Cambridge and Princeton are still putting out books about him. The more I learn about this, the more it does seem that the article's take on Tesla is very idiosyncratic. The section on the AC induction motor definitely seemed to have a bizarre anti-Tesla bias. After days of argument, it's far less POV now. My concern is also somewhat conduct related in that I have yet to contribute anything to the article directly! MrX has been generous enough to add contributions I've suggested, but if I make an edit based on talk page discussion it gets reverted or re-written. This to me seems petty and calculated to frustrate me, and I am starting to take it personally. It's true. I get frustrated. Absolutely. I'm pretty busy today, but it would be helpful if when we start editing the article again we could ping MrScorch6200 should a content dispute arise. Wikipedia absolutely needs more MrScorches, so I understand if your services are in demand. But, gosh that would be a god-send!--Atlantictire (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? First posting every. single. edit to the talk page. Asking the editor to collaborate, instead of unilaterally reverting or ignoring talk page discussion. Addressing the issue, both on the editor's talkpage and the article's talkpage. Expressing to the editor how frustrated I am. Alerting the editor that I would ask for mediation should it continue. How do you think we can help? I would really just like to make edits to this article without having every single one of them reverted. I would like for talk page discussion to be respected. I would like to not have absolutely everything I've written be re-written without discussion. I would like to be able to contribute to this article directly and not via an admin. I would like to not play endless wordgames about sources. Some mediation would be absolutely fantastic. Come to the article and stick around for 1-2 days and notice when FOBM is making it impossible for me to contribute. Mediation. Now. Summary of dispute by Fountains of Bryn MawrPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This seems to have been a case of Atlantictire taking everything personally and focusing his/her venom on one editor---> me. It all started when I reverted a BOLD edit by Atlantictire per WP:BRD and the editor immediately took it personal thinking I was singling him/her out, making that accusation on my talk pagediff, editor also claimed "singling out" in Tesla talkdiff. I pointed out the specific problems with Atlantictire's bold edit, the article lead no longer summarized the article beneath it, the dates were wrong, the wrong company was cited, Westinghouse did not buy Tesla's patents (he licensed them with the famous "tearing up" of the license coming years later), and we could not say Westinghouse buying the patents "igniting the infamous "War of Currents." per WP:YESNPOV, many sources put that two years earlier when Westinghouse started building AC systems to compete with Edison and Morgan. Many attempts on my part to get Atlantictire to "get the point" re:try to follow WP:RS, look at the related articles and follow their sources to at least clear up the incorrect dates seemed to fall on deaf ears (See my talk page[3], see that long talk[4], that long talk[5], and that long talk[6]. The editor seemed to try to explain his/her behaviordiff And I noted WP:CIVIL for the editor diff. Atlantictire then fell into some serious un-civil rearranging my talk and accusing me of "ignoring" him/herdiff, more diff. Admonishment by me to keep it civildiff, request by MrX to keep it civildiff. I had to revert two other edits by Atlantictire(diff)(diff) because both edits removed rival motor inventors and boiled it down singling out Galileo Ferraris as a rival AC developer (he was more of an expert on induction and did not "experimenting with AC technology") and incorrectly described what he built (Tesla's and Ferrais' motor did not differ in brush use). Discussion after that focused on should we mention other competing induction motor developers (present sides) or simply not get into a priority dispute and focus on what Tesla did, not whether it was "the greatest". Consensus seemed to be to focus on what Tesla did. War of the Currents was also solidified by Mrx and added to the lead (by me diff). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by MrXPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I am not really a party to this dispute, but have been actively editing the article, including the section is dispute. Although I disagree slightly with Fountains of Bryn Mawr (FOBM) on the extent of content about the the development of AC that should be included, it hardly rises to the level of the dispute. FOBM has posted a rebuttal to my last comments, which I have not had a chance to study. I have collaborated with FOBM on this article for about two years, and have found him to unfailingly edit in good faith. That said, there are conflicting sources about Tesla's life and contributions, which creates challenges for editors, and sometimes discord. It takes lot of patient discussion to work through these conflicting sources and arrive at consensus. On top of that, there are a number of nationalist SPAs and well meaning, but inexperienced, editors who tend to add hero-worship content to the article. I certainly believe that Atlantictire is editing in good faith, and brings a fresh perspective to the article. His edits seem to be fairly well researched, and deserve consideration. Generally, I'm not in favor of reverting entire edits of experienced editors who (in my opinion) are not pushing a POV. At the same time, editors should not take reverting personally. Talk page posts that start with "FOUNTAINS OF BRYN MAWR DEFIES TALK PAGE DISCUSSION REVERTS AGAIN..." are not conducive to collaboration and only make it less likely that the disputants will listen when a cogent argument is made. I recommend that the each specific item in dispute be discussed and that the sources be examined to determine consensus among them, or to identify sources that we think are the most reliable. If we can keep personal comments off the article talk page, and listen to each other, I'm sure we can work through these issues and improve the article.- MrX 13:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Talk:Nikola Tesla discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@Atlantictire: Please be patient. A DRN may take anywhere from a day to two weeks. I will be as quick and as prompt as I can. Stay calm and take your time while formulating responses. AN/I is always hectic and admins are always trying to clear the backlog, and yes, by sometimes half-assing cases (I've seen it done before). We take our time here and try to keep all of the involved parties happy. I'll look over the dispute and guide you best I can. Thanks guys, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Kurgan
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview A user named Florian_Blaschke denies the etymology section of the word "kurgan". That's all. Have you tried to resolve this previously? At the revision history I have tried to convince him with the wiktionary decision on Altaic etymology entries: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Votes/2013-11/Proto-Altaic#Decision But the only reaction was like "I know better than all", in short he denies the wiktionary consensus. And I am aware I did edit-warring. How do you think we can help? Just make him clear to respect the consensus. Summary of dispute by Florian_BlaschkePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Kurgan discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I will be taking this case, once all parties have commented. I just wanted to remind everyone to keep it civil and polite, as there has been some heated language used for this dispute. Remember we all benefit if we work together cooperatively. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 04:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
|
Timeline of the far future
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Serendipodous on 21:08, 26 June 2014 (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 User:Thunderblade56 has been making uncited changes without discussion to a featured list. I have asked him repeatedly to discuss his changes on the talk page, but he won't. I've probably violated 3RR by now, so I'm moving this up a notch. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have attempted to start a conversation on the talk page, which he has ignored. How do you think we can help? by making him realise that this isn't just me Summary of dispute by Thunderblade56Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Timeline of the far future discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Somali Armed Forces#SAF Structure
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 My focus on Wikipedia is armed forces, with some special emphasis on areas not well covered because of our systemic bias. Under my real name I have published several academic articles; users interested in corroboration off-line are encouraged to contact me. In my editing I’ve encountered POV editing regarding the Azerbaijan, Poland, and Afghanistan articles. But none has matched the subtle but distorting effects this User:Middayexpress, has had. He is on the face of things a good user; references material and adds good content. But on the recent history of Somalia he has a definite blind spot; he is absolutely opposed to any material being included that criticises the transitional governments of 2004 onwards, or that emphasises Ethiopia's significant role in the war. Material that criticises the transitional government is repeatedly removed, sometimes with misleading edit summaries along the lines of "c/e". [8] He repeatedly waters down critical material in a way that misrepesents the political leanings of the people, and cheapens the suffering of those involved. The talkpage record at Somali Civil War will show that I have repeatedly attempted to challenge his watering down of statements and subtle changes of emphasis from the sources, on issues as varied as the actual start date of the civil war, the role of UNOSOM in local peacemaking, and the relative roles of the TFG versus the AU intervention force, AMISOM. This is also at Somali Armed Forces, in a variety of ways. His actions repeatedly whitewash Somali transitional institutions without due consideration of gold-standard investigative sources, for example, Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group. He also has a very WP:OWN attitude to Somalia-related articles; removing material which he doesn't like (such as regions' history), and inserts material which isn't there.
Continued attempts on talkpages (Talk:Somali Civil War, Talk:Somali Armed Forces, requests via WP:MILHIST, request to Milhist coordinators, request to Milhist lead coordinator, who led me here. How do you think we can help? Determine whether a good cross section of the community feels that diffs such as this [9] are WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:POV. This kind of behaviour has been repeated *many* times. If so, the community could recommend actions be taken beyond this noticeboard. Frankly, I've never been as close to quitting in the face of blind censorship - POV - from Wikipedia in eight years. Talk:Somali Armed Forces#SAF Structure discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Kasowitz, Benson,_Torres_%26_Friedman
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 Please note I have a declared COI with the subject of this page and have made no direct edits since March 2013. I have, however, recently been active on the talk page as I believe portions of the current article are in violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Because of my declared COI, I would of course like to avoid directly editing this content. The sections in question include No. of offices (in info box, Reputation and rankings, Lawsuits as PR Tools and Whistleblower Targeting, Cold offers, Attrition, Headcount by Office and Title Have you tried to resolve this previously? Direct correspondence on the talk page with the editor who added this content has not resulted in a consensus on the content in question. A post to the no original research noticeboard went unanswered. How do you think we can help? I would appreciate if a third party editor reviewed the content in question and offered appropriate edits. Summary of dispute by OmaharodeoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Kasowitz, Benson,_Torres_%26_Friedman discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here at DRN, but I am neither taking this request or opening it for discussion at this time. I just wanted to note that Omaharodeo has not edited Wikipedia since June 2, has only edited in relation to this matter, and only had 22 total edits at that time. That's not to say anything bad about him, but unless he comes back and participates here, there may well be no dispute for DRN to handle. If that occurs, this is just a mere help request and DRN does not handle help requests. We'll leave this open for a few days to see if he shows up but if he does not, then this will probably be closed and you can seek help at Editor assistance. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
|
Talk:Madison McKinley
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_McKinley - This article needs help with resolving the disputes between editors in fairness. User Jersey92 has unreasonably and ambiguously tagged the article: Madison McKinley which is beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness. Thus, it is impossible for other Wikipedia editors to know exactly how to help this article. The fact is that user Jersey92 wrote, "I started to edit the article from the start and realized that the entire article needed too much work." So, how are other Wikipedia editors expected know which areas to help out? The level of this article has already determined by Wikipedia a year ago as "start-class". Looking at user Jersey92's record, user Jersey92 has a history of requesting for article deletion; However, McKinley is clearly a notable person. According to the record, all user Jersey92 did was placing the ambiguous tags on the article without showing any evidence of solving the issues. User Jersey92 should at least delete the poor sources as stated by user Jersey92 and put "citation needed" so other Wikipedia editors know where to help out. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Yes How do you think we can help? You can help by dissolving the disputes using fairness. Summary of dispute by Jersey92Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Wikiweb10011Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Madison McKinley discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election
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 I proposed a new system for UK opinion poll tables, adding parties and removing the arbitrariness of the current system to honour Wiki policies on neutrality and inclusion to create an objective, impartial system. Other countries’ tables also follow my system - including who they can and following Wiki policies. I received positive feedback, but Owl In The House opposed. Last week, unaware of a talk page, I added a Green column. Most supported it, but my edits were imperiously dismissed and removed without appropriate consideration by Owl In The House, who stated their opinion and claimed it as 'consensus'. Others agreed - 'I am concerned Owl's strong feelings on this matter shouldn’t be seen as consensus’. I then found Owl was recently pursuing a similar cause to the one s/he was now rejecting - 'trying to force UKIP in when clearly the consensus was against it’. I said these conflicting opinions suggested Owl was manipulating content using political motivations, and expressed concern that s/he was abusing member status to remove my laborious edits. Today, I found the discussion was closed by Owl, who said my comments were ‘to be disregarded’ and ‘based on provably false defamatory comments’. Owl then gave me 'a warning' which s/he does not have the authority to issue, telling me I 'must' retract my remarks and threatening to ‘escalate this'. I was accused of bias and being 'pro-Green', which is exactly the accusation Owl was trying to persecute me for making. The assertive and aggressive language is one issue I want to raise. I received positive feedback for my new table design to harmonise with other countries. When Owl got to it, I was told 'NO, this is not an acceptable change', again using aggressive, assertive language and I was shown no respect ('errr duuuhhh'). Wikipedia is a community project, meaning all editors are equal. The callous way in which my and others' views have been arrogantly dismissed goes against my morals and more importantly Wikipedia’s Have you tried to resolve this previously? I contacted Wikipedia support, and was told 'Wikipedia policy, nonetheless, is that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias'. I was then told to come here to resolve the issue. How do you think we can help? While I realise Wikipedia is run by consensus, I would like to question whether the opposition is justified and whether we should have a more inclusive table system and design. I would also like to raise the issue of Owl In The House's conduct in the dispute, e.g. threatening me with a warning s/he does not have the authority to issue. Summary of dispute by 81.99.59.56What Owl In The House says below is categorically untrue. I did not implement any changes to the system, which is exactly why I posted a prototype on the talk page - to get feedback prior to posting. I have not in any way sensationalised things, and I wholly reject that accusation. This whole 'hard done by' attitude from Owl In The House should not affect an objective view of the situation. Owl In The House repeatedly demands an apology for the accusations I have made, and yet makes the exact same accusations towards me, as already mentioned in the original post, and which can be seen below. I am frankly appalled by the completely spurious accusation of me being 'abusive' (I wonder how long before Owl starts launching personal attacks). A quick read of the talk page would see the constant domineering approach taken by Owl In The House to anyone who disagrees with them seems to be more than enough to justify the label s/he throws around so erroneously. I should not have to keep defending myself over these unjust accusations. Owl In The House claims I haven't 'came here to be constructive' but with 'a set agenda'. If that bias accusation were true, would I really spend my time redesigning the entire table on a visual level as well as structurally? The reason I launched the query was to be constructive and follow Wikipedia's policies on inclusion and neutrality. Owl In The House's 'plea' with me to read Wiki policy, which I had already done, seems like merely an effort to condescend me and try and portray him/herself as the more 'experienced' editor, as is evident in his/her highlighting of me being a 'new IP editor'. If Owl In The House had even read Wikipedia policy, they would know editors should be treated equally and not ridiculed, and they would also know that pages should be 'written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias'. What I have proposed, and what every other country is using, regardless of voting system, is exactly that. Owl In The House seems to be alone in these stubborn opinions, whilst I have received positive feedback for my proposal. Owl insists that because this system has been active for so long, it is automatically right. As I have mentioned, every other country is using the system I propose, so why shouldn't we change the UK system and honour Wikipedia's policies? Summary of dispute by Owl In The HousePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
William McIntosh page
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview The traditional MUSCOGEE CREEK spelling of WHITE WARRIOR is spelled Tvstvnvkke Hvtke. William McIntosh is my GR-GR-GR-GR-GR Grandfather on my FATHER'S side. I am a citizen of the Muscogee Creek Nation and a READER, WRITER, and SPEAKER of the MUSCOGEE CREEK LANGUAG All I want is that an article about my ancestor is that it be as correct as possible especially when it concerns his NATIVE CULTURE. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I edited the page with INCORRECT information about WILLIAM MCINTOSH How do you think we can help? Your researcher needs to do more research on traditional MUSCOGEE CREEK spelling instead of taking someone's word as to how it is spelled. Again I am a MUSCOGEE CREEK READER, WRITER, SPEAKER, AND TEACHER. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
William McIntosh page discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Windows Live_Mail#Routing_of_mail.2C_general_security
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Two users have deleted twice a request for article to contain information on whether Microsoft Live Mail routes emails through Microsoft or only service providers' routes. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Asked not to be erased. Pointed out they put words in my mouth I didn't say. How do you think we can help? Make a judgement call. Summary of dispute by FleetCommandPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Codename LisaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Windows Live_Mail#Routing_of_mail.2C_general_security discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Saybrook University
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I have been making good faith edits and been getting abusive and poorly referenced changes (with high selective reading) and poor use of the talk page by a user. It's getting to the level of edit warring and I am going to leave the article alone for now since I may be at fault here as well. Users Ugog Nizdast and Stfg have been helpful as a 3O, but I think some more outside help is needed here. Have you tried to resolve this previously? notice on users talk page, requests that editor use talk page, long discussions on talk page and requests for better sources and attempts to try to teach the user about what type of sources are credible versus not How do you think we can help? Not sure. Others weighing in more on the talk page and in editing might be helpful. Summary of dispute by 175.157.2.57Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Ugog NizdastPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by StfgPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Saybrook University discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer's note re parties: I am a regular volunteer here at DRN, but I am neither "taking" nor opening this case for discussion at this time. It should be noted that Ugog Nizdast and Stfg participated at the article talk page as dispute resolution (Third Opinion) volunteers and may choose to either not respond here or choose not to participate. If that is the case, then their absence is not critical since it is unlikely that they would continue to be parties to the dispute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
|
Talk:History of the Shakespeare authorship question
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Following several academic reference books, I have added a greater range of dates to the 'first doubts' concerning the [History of the Shakespeare Authorship Question]. I adjusted the lead accordingly, and was reverted several times. The current phrasing is just plain wrong (Claims that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him were first explicitly made in the 19th century. To that date, there is no evidence that his authorship was ever questioned.) I have cited two reference books that were already used in the article, but am being told the references are either "wrong" or don't count. At some time, the word "explicit" was added and now the editors are deciding what was implicit and what was not. There is a related article where similar issues are at play: [List of Shakespeare authorship candidates] where the same mistake opens the article. In a similar issue, an addition I made was deleted because I was told that the academic reference book "was wrong".[[10]] Have you tried to resolve this previously? Because there were multiple issues, (conduct and content), I filed at the administrator notice board and was told they don't do content, and I was referred here. Prior to that I posted extensive quotes from the two reference books, [[11]] but no response other than accusations that I didn't understand the references. How do you think we can help? Help build a consensus on the opening statement of these two articles. The current editing team is locked into only adding material they agree with. The leads should reflect the articles and the references and they do not. If scholars disagree, that should be acknowledged in the article. And opinions should not be stated as facts. We need help to correct these issues and provide future guidance. Summary of dispute by TomReedyAfter being here a month, with 96 mainspace edits and 26 talkpage edits, FatGuySeven (talk · contribs) seems to believe that content sourced by old and superseded sources must be included in Wikipedia articles with no exercise of editorial judgement, whilst my position is that we are not required to follow sources into error, especially when supported by later scholarship. As with the original complaint, I'm sure the admins will be able to determine the reality of the situation by reviewing the edit histories (Shakespeare authorship question: Revision history, List of Shakespeare authorship candidates: Revision history, History of the Shakespeare authorship question: Revision history) and talk pages (Talk:Shakespeare authorship question, Talk:List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, Talk:History of the Shakespeare authorship question) of the relevant articles, so I'll hold my peace unless asked a direct question to refrain from making this any longer and more tedious than necessary. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by NishidaniReedy, I and Paul Barlow (and a few others) brought that article out of the slough of despond it languished in for several years when it was dominated by a true believer User:Smatprt by bringing it up and passing the FA test some years ago. A dozen long-term editors see to it that its quality is maintained, all thoroughly informed of the history of its controversies. The present editor seems to be a newbie, and walks past detailed explanations as to why two books written in the late 50s, with many errors or oversights corrected by later scholarship, cannot be cited for views which are no longer supported by scholarship (but which are still pillars of the WP:Fringe world of pseudo-research that goes under the name of anti-Stratfordism). That's all I have to say. I don't engage in dispute resolution with people who walk into wiki and after a week of not replying intelligently to serious rejoinders, go to A/1 and then to the dispute resolution page. I've been through all this before, and all of the arguments and the patterns of editing, are amply available in the archived pages. If I see something intelligent, I will drop a note. Otherwise, there is no dispute here, but simply a behavioural problem wedded to a frail grasp of policy and practice.Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Talk:History of the Shakespeare authorship questionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Administrative comments: I've closed the discussion at WP:ANI (see here) and there has been significant discussion on the talk page so it appears this case meets the requirements of WP:DRN. However, having perused the responses from the participants above as well as some of the links provided and the talk page discussion, I am doubtful that this issue is within the scope of this noticeboard's general description and purpose: "an informal place to resolve small content disputes." The issue concerns a wide variety of sources, requires some knowledge of the subject area, and would include significant reading/research for the moderator. It also appears to have impacted the content and editing at several related articles. I'm inclined to think that the issue is too broad for DRN and should be referred to WP:MEDIATION. Comments from others? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer coordinator)
|
Star Alliance
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I recently made some edits to the star alliance, Air india, and airline alliance pages. A user named Rzxz1980 deleted all my hard work and said they don't join till July. I gave him a press release from Star Alliance but he still deleted everything. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I told him on his talk page. How do you think we can help? I would like a one on one discussion with him. Summary of dispute by Rzxz1980Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Star Alliance discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Nature%27s Harmony_Farm
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Natures harmony farm has been the focus of controversy for its published practices and procedures. An entry here that covers the basic points of the controversy (as well as text authored by the owners of the farm) continues to be edited to remove any references to the various controversial items; animal husbandry, tampering with reviews on amazon, that the farm is for sale now, opinions of other experienced farmers, and so on. The original entry was created by a username Candleabracadabra that was later deemed a sock puppet acount. Have you tried to resolve this previously? after noticing the deletions, I've tried to contact the editor three times on his talk page. No response. Just more deletions. How do you think we can help? I'd like to have a discussion about the items he objects to to make sure that they're factual and correct. If there is another side to the story, I'd like him to tell it in the entry. Wikipedia entries are not a marketing tool for a farm, which is apparently what he considers it to be. Failing a discussion, I'd like edits to be restricted on this entry. Summary of dispute by skynrdmanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by CandleabracadabraPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Nature%27s Harmony_Farm discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Ghana
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview A group of editors whom I believe are working together are populating Ghana article with Akan content. (the Asante ethnic group to be specific). Most of the information they provide (already contained on other Akan related articles) are trivial and do not impart further meaning to the context of Ghana article only that it asserts their motive. The Akan ethnic group are the largest in the country and I understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines permit discussing individual ethnic groups relative to their population in the country as per WP:WEIGHT. However, the manner of their edits portrays an unhealthy agenda of promoting Akan dominance overall, whiles downplaying on the importance of other existing ethnic groups. I find such edits regarding a culturally divers country such as Ghana as very controversial and insensitive and has a potential to cause tensions among its people if not properly watched. They are so determined to push this agenda so much so that they avoid discussing their edits on the talk page even after I made incessant polite appeals to them to do so. Should they appear on the talk page at all they do not stay on point of the dispute or try to resolve it but rather resort to personal attacks, revert my edits and template my talk page with vandalism. The parties involved are further engaged in the removal of maintenance tags without attempting to correct the concerns of the tags. They remove "failed verification" and "citation needed" tags in-lines with impunity and once again call me a vandal for requesting clarification. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I first tried placing maintenance tags on the article, they get rid if them and even remove "citation needed" and "failed-verification" templates. Then I tried getting them to engage in article talk discussions but they choose rather to respond with personal attacks in edit summaries and on the talk page. One user (Thesunshinesate in particular) stated in the talk page that "lol, I can't deal with you" and "I can spend time to refute your claims one by one but I won't I can't take you seriously" How do you think we can help? I would like that you did away with all disputed statements that fail verification or have no references. I would also like that the article maintains a neutral tone and does not try to promote some ethnic group above others and downplaying on others, such an atmosphere does not and has never existed in the country and is only now emerging on Wikipedia. Summary of dispute by ThesunshinesateMrScorch6200 thnx for the notification. I have already engaged the other editor on the talk page of the Ghana article, there isn't anything I have to say that I haven't said there. Thesunshinesate (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC). Summary of dispute by BantekasPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 216.165.95.64Why can't we all just watch the world cup #Team USA OK, I haven’t been a part of the edit war on the page but The user Masssly who started this report here on the noticeboard has been terrorizing the Ghana for weeks now and was recently blocked for edit warring. He is unhappy that the page has information about the Akan ethic group of Ghana. The countries largest ethic group. The Akan’s mainly the Ashanti people had a huge impact in the development of the nation and has had a significant role in that region for thousands of years. To be honest they ranked among the most powerful African kingdoms of all time. A simple Internet search on the countries history will bring up countless academic and researched information supporting this. But Massly claims it’s all lies and its some sort of consripiracie to push “Akan Dominance”. Massly according to his Wikipedia page is from one of Ghana’s smaller and less influential ethnic groups. His whole purpose is to remove the information of the Akan from the page. Infect he did it and replaced it with the “history” (more like oral folklore) of his people. Being well versed in the history of pre-colonial Africa as well as knowing about ethnic relations. I am aware of the rift between the predominantly muslin northerners of Ghana and the rest of the other groups who are mostly Akan and Christian. Massly edits are just a form of tribal warfare. He doesn’t like the Akan’s mainly the Ashanti and he wants to remove their influence from the page. Being that they make up about 80% of Ghana’s population it’s hard to not mention them in an article about Ghana when their people and culture helped shaped the country. As John Carter mentioned below it is a issue of WP:WEIGHT. Also, Masssly hasn’t provided a single source to contradict what is written. All he does is remove portions and twist references. He claim there is a conspiracy but if anyone has a conspiracy it is him. All he wants is for any mention of them to be removed from the article. But when you look at the Ghana page. They are not mentioned or talk about as much as he makes it seem. This is my 2 cents on the matter. 216.165.95.64 (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by involved John CarterSo far as I can tell, the essence of the dispute relates to WP:WEIGHT and frequency and degree of mention of the various ethnic groups in the Ghana article. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Talk:Ghana discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Abiogenesis
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview The current lead sentence of the article entitled "abiogenesis" is incorrect. Editors of the page are refusing to allow it to be corrected and closing discussions on the talk page describing why it is incorrect. Bottom line: If there is a natural process by which life could have emerged from non living material, scientists certainly haven't identified or described it yet, so it is misleading to students and the community to suggest that they have. Because such a process cannot currently be explained and may never will, it simply cannot be assumed that life was formed through natural processes in the first place; speculation and assumption are not scientific facts. The Oxford Dictionary definition of theory is "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained" and based on current science, that's exactly what abiogenesis is. A theory is only a theory until it is proven with undeniable evidence, and the burden of proof lies on proponents of abiogenesis to show that life was formed through natural processes. For a structure to be considered alive it must be self reproducing and self sustaining through a metabolism that responds to its environment. A complete cell is the smallest unit that can be considered alive. Amino acids aren't alive. Lipids aren't alive. Carbohydrates aren't alive. Yet these are the structures discussed in the article, and in current science, that have been produced experimentally through natural processes - not life itself. Since scientific experimentation has only showed how organic compounds could have been made through natural processes, not living cells, it is reasonable to doubt that abiogenesis occurred. The burden of proof is on proponents of the theory and they may never be able to achieve it, meaning that life may not have been formed by natural processes at all. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I proposed the new lead sentence of "abiogenesis is the theory that life could have arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds, through natural processes." on the talk page. Several Wikipedia users including ReallyFat B., Dontreader, and 86.21.101.69 agree that this is a much more accurate lead sentence. However, Wikipedia editors like Apokryltaros, BatteryIncluded and Drbogdan continually deny these changes and close our discussion threads on the talk page showing why it is better. How do you think we can help? The current lead sentence "abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds" is not a factual statement by any means. Several Wikipedia users have opened discussion on the articles talk page showing why, only to have them closed. Allow changes to be made to the lead sentence of the "abiogenesis" article based on facts, evidence (or lack thereof) and logic - regardless of the individual users opinions on the subject who disagree. Summary of dispute by ReallyFat B.I agree with Shandck in all he has said. I cannot stress enough that this is a topic open to debate, and that there are several alternatives to the current phrasing. I can suggest a few here myself. One could replace this: Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds. with the following: Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is thought to be the natural process... Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the theorized natural process... In scientific theory, Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the... I also strongly advocate the removal of the redirect of the page Origin of Life to Abiogenesis, and instead set up a disambiguation page of sorts which may allow users to freely choose which article(s) they wish to look at (Pansermia, Abiogenesis, Creation, etc). The current sentence is misleading and grossly incorrect. Abiogenesis has never once been observed in action, nor has it been ever reproduced in a lab - nobody has even come close. The largest encyclopedia in the world can not have a process which is at best a theory labelled falsely as a fact under the whim of a few editors who have been running down all attempts of review or correction through mean, ad hominem attacks and refusal to address the issue. I sincerely hope that this issue is addressed this time around, and addressed properly. Summary of dispute by DontreaderPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 86.21.101.69Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ApokryltarosPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by BatteryIncludedPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DrbogdanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Abiogenesis discussionI'm uninvolved, but it is worth pointing out that the actual first line of this article reads ...
Given that, this is pointless. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
|
Rookie Blue (season 5)
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview If American airdates should be included for a Canadian series. I removed because its a Canadian series. No need for international premieres. I kept the US ratings as per MOS:TV ("As this is not the American Wikipedia, it would be beneficial to find international reception.") Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussing the problem on his talk page. How do you think we can help? American or British airdates can't be added to every series. Original airdate is enough. We don't just list airdates for every country. Summary of dispute by Walter GörlitzPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Rookie Blue (season 5) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Category talk:Cities and towns in Russia#Continental categories
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I removed two categories which violate WP:SUBCAT and WP:V via WP:CAT. The only remotely adequate counterargument (local consensus) to this claim was refuted (WP:CONLIMITED), otherwise nobody has addressed the points raised. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to get WP:3O, but that became moot very quickly. How do you think we can help? Maybe this process will get Good Ol'factory back to the table, and help focus on addressing the points raised, instead of trying to drag considerations into the discussion that belong elsewhere. An RfC is a bit much for what amounts to simply enforcing WP:CAT. Summary of dispute by postdlfPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Good_OlfactoryPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Category talk:Cities and towns in Russia#Continental categories discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Administrative note: It appears there has been extensive discussion on the talk page and that all participants have been notified of this DRN case on their talk page. After the participants have made opening statements any DRN volunteer may open the case for moderated discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer coordinator)
|
Talk:Rob Ford mayoral campaign, 2014#Ben Johnson and Sam Tarasco
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview This dispute is regarding whether or not we should say that Ben Johnson and Sam Tarasco are part of Rob Ford's campaign team, based on available sources. On April 8 this year, Johnson and Tarasco met with Ford, who announced that they were joining his campaign team; the announcement was well covered. A day later, both Johnson and Tarasco said they met with Ford for an unrelated charity event and he surprised them with the announcement, and denied that they have any official role in the campaign. Two sources I added to the article quote Ford's campaign manager backing this up. User Kingjeff is reading this (I think) as saying that they are involved with the campaign but with no particular task, while I read "no official role" as meaning they are not officially part of the campaign team. The dispute is explained in more detail on the talk page. Kingjeff has also accused me of POV pushing related to this (on my talk page) which I don't take as offensive (it's Rob Ford after all) but I disagree that my edits are biased. I wish only to include factual information from reliable sources, and not publish half-truths about living persons. However I recognize that I may not be able to see my own POV on this (I live in Toronto) thus input on neutrality would be greatly appreciated. Have you tried to resolve this previously? After User Kingjeff reverted a series of my edits, I opened a set of discussions on the talk page. We reached a compromise on most of the issues, but we are not able to resolve the dispute described above after fairly extensive debate. Since Kingjeff has accused me of pushing a non-neutral POV, I feel that the likelihood of the two of us resolving this one-on-one is remote. How do you think we can help? We need a neutral editor to review the sources and determine what is appropriate to include in the article. Any other commentary is welcome. Summary of dispute by KingjeffPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Rob Ford mayoral campaign, 2014#Ben Johnson and Sam Tarasco discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Administrative note: In my opinion there has been significant talk page discussion and the issue is defined and meets the scope of DRN. All participants have been notified and as soon as Kingjeff (talk · contribs) provides a summary I will begin moderation of this dispute. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
|
Coffee
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 When referencing anything that has to do with the coffee plant (coffea arabica or robusta), the fruit of the plant is technically a cherry, or drupe and not a berry. There is a different variety of the Coffeeberry plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhamnus_californica)where the use of coffeeberry is appropriate due to the actual name of the plant. Even the coffee industry does not use the word "coffee berry" when referencing the coffee fruit. It is a misrepresentation of what the fruit actually is, and factually incorrect. It is not even colloquially or within the coffee industry accurate, or used to represent the coffee fruit. In, addition, my company (www.futureceuticals.com) owns the trademark Coffeeberry(r) and the worldwide patents to preserve the entire coffee fruit (www.coffeeberry.com). Before our technology was introduced, the mucilage of the coffee fruit was discarded as waste. Consiquesntly, any use of the term Coffeeberry without carrying the (r) is a violation of our intellectual property, and in conjunction with the above noted misuse of the coffee berry terminology, we feel a corrected Wiki page is in order. I contacted the author of the page, and on several occasions, the author refused to make the changes to the sections that only referenced the coffee plant, and the images with misuses in the cutlines. We have no issue with the coffeeberry borer plant use as it does not reference the fruit of the coffea arabica plant. The disimbiguation page for coffee berry should also be addressed.
The page author suggested this method of resolution How do you think we can help? I would ask that all references on the coffee page of 'coffee berry' be changed to 'coffee fruit' or 'coffee cherry' to reflect a more accurate and proper use. Any reference to the fruit of the coffea arabica plant as coffee berry, or coffeeberry, has been trademarked and patented by Futureceuticals, Inc., and thus should carry the proper (r) designation if used in this context. Thank you. Summary of dispute by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AntiqueightPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Coffee discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Star Alliance#Air_India
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I sent a request and it was answered but not to my liking. I am sending a new request because I have some new information on Air India's membership into star alliance. Here are the links to the new information.Here are the links http://www.staralliance.com/en/services/map http://www.starallianceemployees.com/about-staralliance/member-airline-ceo.html http://www.starallianceemployees.com/about-staralliance/member-airlines.html http://www.starallianceemployees.com/about-staralliance/member-airlines.html?tx_mprefguide_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=30&cHash=2a981fdc5da60bfee95d22271a4e3665
Requested dispute resolution How do you think we can help? By looking at my new information and then see if i can edit. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Star Alliance#Air_India discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Jennifer Rubin (journalist)
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview There is an unresolved dispute about critical material about this person. Involved editors have been reverting each other over past several weeks. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Requested feedback at the BLP/N - Talk page discussion Talk:Jennifer_Rubin_(journalist)#Very_serious_POV_problems How do you think we can help? By providing moderation in te discussion to identify common ground and arrive at a compromise. Summary of dispute by Factchecker atyourserviceI can't think what I would say here that hasn't already been said repeatedly (and at length) over at the talk page. Aua and Sepsis have an axe to grind and they are insistent upon committing policy violations to get the job done. IMO these two editors cannot objectively edit articles about Jews whom they plainly despise, and they have each earned a topic ban at minimum. The most cursory inspection of the content these editors insist upon will reveal gross policy violations including inappropriate POV editorializing and misrepresentation of cited sources. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MaleroosterPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Sean.hoylandThanks for the invite but my involvement there is limited to reverting site banned racist psychopath Grawp/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis, someone who has issued countless threats of violence and been disrupting Wikipedia for 10 years. They are probably the single worst offender in Wikipedia's history. Why they are not in prison or a psychiatric ward given that their identity is known is a bit puzzling. I have no interest in the article or any content issues. I understand from Factchecker atyourservice here that sledgehammer-like reverts may cause collateral damage, at least in their view, which is entirely possible, but I'm assuming editors who are actually interested in the content can cover that. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Sepsis IIThis is a common problem around ARBPIA articles, one editor tries to whitewash it, I restore and inform the whitewasher why their edits are inappropriate, they violate BLP by posting insults to notable writers, no one cares as the target isn't anti-Palestine, brewcrewer reverts me as he often stalks my edits, the whitewasher continues to not listen, then they go to boards. Sepsis II (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by brewcrewerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by AuaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Jennifer Rubin (journalist) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Administrative note: Dear Cwobeel (talk · contribs), if you wish to move forward with this case at DRN, you will need to close the discussion at WP:BLPN. Please post a note here when you have done that. Also, what is the critical content that is under dispute? Please specify this in your case summary above. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)(DRN volunteer coordinator)
24 hour closing notice -- So far there is not enough participation to warrant hearing a case. Unless this changes quickly I'm going to need to close this case as stale and unsuccessful.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
|
Penny McLean
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview The author of a wiki page for musician Penny McLean is fighting with me on a dispute. I do not wish to deal with this author any more. They are very STUBBORN and wrong and they will NOT relent. If you look at their contributor history, you will see a lot of other disagreements and fights with other wikipedia users over incorrect content, especially with regard to redirects. That is my problem the author refuses to allow me to correct their error on a redirect. They think they OWN this GD wikipedia page and will NOT allow others to contribute. It is NOT their personal webpage for god's sake. I really think you should shut them down or block them from this kind of POSSESSIVE activity over the articles they are contributing to if they are not a specialist in the area of contribution. I am a professional musician. I am also a professional library cataloger. I have a SERIOUS issue with the way the jerk keeps INSISTING that the singer Penny McLean be redirected to the disco band Silver Convention. This is NOT right and I strongly disagree with it. I understand the policy of redirecting musicians that are of no special importance to the band or group they are mostly associated with - I'm not arguing with that. What I beg to disagree with is that Penny McLean does NOT fit this criteria in this particular instance. She was known internationally for a major disco hit called "Lady bump". That means that she had a significant hit and was known as a one hit wonder artist. She also had several other solo hits in the disco genre, OUTSIDE of her involvement with the disco group Silver Convention. The other members of the group Silver Convention listed on their wiki page do not have separate links, but the guy who made this redirect was too LAZY to do proper research on her and write her own article. He took the LAZY way out and made a lame redirect only for her, which again DOES NOT APPLY properly to this particular artist. See the german wiki for Penny McLean! Have you tried to resolve this previously? User Kkj11210 thinks he's an expert and won't allow anyone else to contribute to articles. He is stubborn and obviously does NOT know about this artist, so he's too lazy to write and article. The German wiki page for Penny McLean is good and correct. He did not even SEE there is merit for having her own page. All he does is undo the change and keeps persisting on using this redirect to Silver Convention. It's Maddening and annoying that the user won't let others participate here! How do you think we can help? 1. An authorized wikipedia editor needs to translate the german wiki page for Penny McLean into English and update the existing stub into a FULL article on her in English, NOT a redirect to Silver Convention. 2. Add a "SEE ALSO" which hyperlinks to Silver Convention on Penny McLean's full article 3. Get the psychocase wiki contributor known as Kkj11210 to STOP harrassing other contributors. You should again check his wiki contributions history to see the hostility he is causing! Summary of dispute by Kkj11210Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Penny McLean discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
eSys Group
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview My edits on "eSys Group" had been cited as being non-neutral by an administrator and I'm refused further clarification on the subject. The revision the administrator, FreeRangeFrog, maintains as current is itself tagged as an advert and outdated. My best understanding of the contention is my edits are non-neutral due to the use of words like "alleged". This is, however, also the language used in external material sourced. If the word appears to occur too many times, it is due to the nature of the subject being subjected to much litigation and made many claims. Have you tried to resolve this previously? FreeRangeFrog request further discussion to be opened here after discussions had been closed at his talk page. I had tagged my revision with POV issue tag to enable further discussion but the tag had been removed. How do you think we can help? I would like a discussion to see if information I'd provided is neutral or can be edited to be more so. Additionally, there's another user "Pranab.bann" who had written the current revision and could be included in this discussion but the user did also wanted the page deleted . Summary of dispute by FreeRangeFrogI have to apologize to the DRN volunteers for having been the cause (at least indirectly) for this ending up here, but I think it might be valuable as a sort of second opinion so that the editor who filed this complaint doesn't feel that I'm the only one preventing them from editing. The alternative is to simply block their account for disruptive editing, which I would rather avoid. I have no content interest with this article, nor am I now or ever been involved in any way with editing it, as is obvious from its history. I initially reverted what I thought was a destructive and POV edit by the user, and subsequently that made its way over to my talk page. Drmwahaha insists this is a perfectly valid edit, which is obviously not the case. The insertion of "alleged" and "allegedly" all over the place, the removal of issue tags and the infobox and addition of citations as external links are unacceptable on any good day, for any article. On my talk page (link to that discussion above) I repeatedly attempted to explain to them that they were free to edit the article and add the information they had, so long as they took five minutes to read the citation guide and observed WP:NPOV. Which of course they refuse to do. The last time they reverted me they went as far as adding an NPOV tag to the top of the article, which is ridiculous. There is no content dispute here per se, and my mention of DRN was more in response to the user's claims that Pranab.bann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was somehow preventing them from editing the article (I note that they did incorrectly nominate it for deletion as well), which I suppose is why this ended up here. I don't know if this is a competency issue, a language barrier or what, but if someone else can explain to Drmwahaha that their edits are inappropriate, I would appreciate it. I've wasted enough time on this already. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC) eSys Group discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello, I am Mark Miller, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Since FreeRangeFrog is only acting in their capacity as an administrator I don't feel that my having had interactions with them previously should be an issue for me to review this request, filed by the other editor. FreeRange has indicated that they are not involved so I will check the article, participants etc., to make a quick assessment.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
|
Talk:Norwegian Long_Haul
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Dear Sir/Madam. This regards the article about Norwegian Long Haul, and specifically the section "criticism" which was completly removed by an administrator by username MilborneOne. Norwegian Long Haul is an international/intercontinental airline that has met hard criticism in Norwegian and international media due to controversial employment contracts and for their ways to avoid paying taxes. They have also received criticism for their establishment within the USA. In short, the criticism can be compared to the criticism presented to e.g. Ryanair and/or other similar low-cost airlines, though this now also relates to an intercontinental airline. I perceive the criticism to be relevant to the article, while the administrator deleted all of it. He/she (MilborneOne) firstly claimed the criticism section was to big for the article (weight). He later removed the whole section, but then based on contentent, not weight. After giving my reply on the talk page, he now wants it back into the main article, but he thinks the content is too biased. I agree to the latter, and the airline has been found to use PR agencies on the internet before, and citations were made to Norwegian Long Haul's own pro-operating-in-the-US-documents... The ammount of criticism against the airline is publicly documented to be extensive (both in Norway and abroad) and thus relevant. Because the article is short in content already, a criticism section will be able to dominate the article if it is consistently revised and written. Part of the cause for this is that most of the information about the airline is fount in the article of the sister-company, Norwegian Air Shuttle. I cannot see how an administrator can be using extensive power in significant questions, suddenly deleting a whole section of users' contribution built over a long period of time, instead of making a separate article about it, especially when he/she claimed it to be relevant. I want to ask for your review into this matter. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page discussion, requesting the administrator's feedback (MIlborneOne), giving suggestions, revising content, discussed with other users How do you think we can help? Please review the possibility for a separate article. I want to know to what extent the administrator (MilborneOne) has followed Wikipedia administrator guidelines by not creating this already. Wiki-user Mortyman created a separate article, which seem to have been deleted(?). I ask you to look into the matters mentioned. Summary of dispute by MilborneOnePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MortymanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Norwegian Long_Haul discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Trap (music)
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview There has been a long and involving discussion amongst wikipedia users around the origins of Trap/EDM Trap music. A number of user have provided good credible sources showing that the latest incarnations of Trap music have origins in Europeans genres like Dubstep. All users bar one individual StaticVapor have agreed with changes to reflect this information in the 'Stylistic Origins' section of the Trap page. The aforementioned user has abused his position as an established wikipedia to define the page as he see fits, completely disregarding credible sources and defining any changes that are made as Vandalism. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have stood apart from the warring that eventually took place and tried to engage the user in a BRD cycle, but he has simply ignored all message requests. Thus as a result I am forced to raise a dispute request How do you think we can help? Could you please review the Trap music talk and see the discussions amongst users. about the links between Dubstep, Grime and Trap music, coming to final decision on whether 'Dubstep' should be included in the 'stylistic origins' section of the page and whether 'cultural origins' should also be updated to reflect the development of Trap music in the United Kingdom. This would also be of relevance to the 'regional scene' section as there is a UK based Trap scene.All sources are in the talk page Summary of dispute by STATicVaporPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Trap (music) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Michael Pitts (preacher)
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview The page Michael Pitts (preacher) did not mention any of his arrests and convictions. I believe that his supporters are trying to deny / confuse this information from being on Wikipedia. The page has a history of editors completely removing the entire section of "Scandals" and "Controversies". I would appreciate an Administrator to review these edits and also my latest edit (which probably has been deleted already). I believe my latest edit compared to what is being put up there is easier to understand the criminal past of Michael Pitts. Thank you. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None other than Talk boards and edit summaries. How do you think we can help? Please review the edits on this page and also my latest edit (which probably has been deleted already). I believe my latest edit compared to what is being put up there is easier to understand the criminal past of Michael Pitts. The current edits that are being made seem to be from a point of view of someone supporting Michael Pitts rather than his complete background and history. Summary of dispute by ThePianoMan76Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Michael Pitts (preacher) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|