Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 161
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 155 | ← | Archive 159 | Archive 160 | Archive 161 | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | → | Archive 165 |
Talk:Malayalam
![]() | Closed as now also pending in another forum, Arbitration Enforcement. DRN does not handle a case that is also pending in another content forum or in a conduct forum. Arbitration Enforcement and WP:ANI are content fora. I am not commenting at this time on the merits of the complaint by User:Nagadeepa against User:Hyper9, other than that I will note that both parties have been uncivil, and both parties are cautioned to avoid personal attacks, and that uncivil behavior in a conduct forum may be undesirable. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Debate on origins of Malayalam There has been heated arguments on the Malayalam page. One editor Hyper9 is consistently deleting referenced arguments and distorting an accurate scientific source (S.V Shanmugam) to promote his fringe views (That Malayalam has an independent origin from Tamil). 3rd party assistance is needed to maintain an accurate history of the language.
Attempted reasoned discussion on talk page to no avail. Attempted to hold a dispute resolution a few days ago which was unilaterally abrogated by Hyper9. Hyper9 has now agreed to take part in the process, provided that the discussion is solely focused on the arguments and not his personal character or behaviour.
An independent mediator to ensure that scientific sources are not distorted and wilfully misinterpreted. Summary of dispute by Hyper9Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Malayalam discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Kalki Koechlin#Nationality
![]() | Closed. There has been no further comment here after a reminder about the no original research policy. Discussion is continuing on the article talk page. Please continue those discussions. If there continues to be disagreement, a Request for Comments can be used between alternatives that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The nationality of an actor, Kalki Koechlin, has been the subject of edits and reverts from time to time. She has been mentioned as holding a French passport in a French magazine, Ouest. Indian sources 'India Today' and 'The Hindu' mention her Indian citizenship as quoted by the actress herself. All these three sources are from around 2015-16 and finding more reliable sources to support either stance has been an issue. Have you tried to resolve this previously? A notice at WikiProject India didn't attract any comments, while another discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Numerounovedant#Nationality_of_Kalki_Koechlin in January was inconclusive. How do you think we can help? Getting more editors involved to reach a consensus can help resolve the issue (perhaps someone who has a much detailed understanding of citizenship laws). On consensus, an editnotice can be placed so that the nationality in several parts of the article isn't meddled with henceforth. Summary of dispute by Wisi euPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Kalki Koechlin, an actress, has stated in an interview that she has a *French passport only* for travel purposes, stating that the country she lives and works in did not allow her to take dual nationality. Hence the corrections on her EN wiki page. User: Wisi_eu 13 Feb. 2018 - 16:03 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Kailash29792Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by NumerounovedantPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Kalki Koechlin#Nationality discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note: There has been adequate discussion and notice. However, I'm neither "taking" this nor opening it for discussion. Indeed, I won't be taking it (or participating as a party to the dispute). I have given an "Nth Opinion" at the article talk page noting that much or all the current discussion is attempting to reach a conclusion which could be in violation of the no original research policy if included in the article. If the volunteer who takes the case agrees with that assessment, then my suggestion would be to close this request with a recommendation that discussion pick back up at the article talk page taking the no original research policy into consideration. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
|
Talk:Banderites
![]() | Closed as premature. The discussion at the article talk page has been minimal. Resume discussion at the article talk page. If discussion there is inconclusive, another thread can be filed here later, or a Request for Comments can be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I tried to prevent what I see as Wikipedia:Content forking at the Wikipedia article Banderites but this attempt quickly became an edit war.... Have you tried to resolve this previously? Poeticbent did not respond to me when I contacted him on his talkpage and does not explain why his edits are not content forking How do you think we can help?
Summary of dispute by PoeticbentPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Banderites discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Priya Prakash_Varrier#Alleged_insult_to_Mohammad_incident
![]() | In light of the progress at the AFD, this discussion will most-likely be a non-meaningful expenditure of time and editorial resources.Additionally, the scarcity of any substantial discussion fails to convince me of the need of any moderated dispute-resolution.Anyways, we can come back here, post the AFD-close, shall the need arise. ~ Winged BladesGodric 16:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Yogesh Khandke on 14:34, 19 February 2018 (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 I wish to add pertinent well sourced information to an article that is at AfD, the other editor has removed it once and disagrees its inclusion, even after I took his objections to the use of the word "controversy" into account. His objections do not appear to be based on logic to me. The draft is as follows, in italics "A FIR was registered by the Hyderabad police against Varrier, on a complaint filed by a youth for allegedly insulting Mohammad the founder of Islam, in relation to the viral video in which she appears.[1] The Raza Academy has asked Smriti Irani, India's Information and Broadcasting central minister, for a ban on the said song in which Varrier appears, claiming it is derogatory to Mohammad and his "pious wife", they demanded that the song be censored. A protest was arranged by them outside Mumbai's Minara Masjid.[2] Kerala chief minister, Pinarayi Vijayan criticised the complaint and the resulting controversy, terming the matter a manifestation of unacceptable intolerance.[3] Warrier has petitioned the Supreme Court of India seeking that the FIR be cancelled.[4]" I propose that a section be created, with the same tittle as this section. However I am not stuck up about the separate section bit or any word/words being changed as long as the four stages are covered, (1)the FIR, (2)demands by Raza Academy, (3) opposition by Vijayan (4)Supreme Court petition. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to discuss over the past six days, I tried to explain that the content is directly related to the subject and not extraneous as alleged. How do you think we can help? Other non-involved editors may share there views and perhaps mediate Summary of dispute by SitushPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Priya Prakash_Varrier#Alleged_insult_to_Mohammad_incident discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
User talk:Fylindfotberserk#Nisha_Rawal
![]() | No possible dispute. One source says that "Nisha Rawal has been married to Karan Mehra from 2012 to present" without mentioning ethnicity; another says that "Karan Mehra's [says that his] wife is a Gujarati" but never says who his wife is. To get to Nisha Rawal being Gujarati you have to combine facts from both those sources. The No original research policy says, "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." Fylindfotberserk is absolutely correct about this issue under Wikipedia policy. Just in passing let me note that the Twitter source mentioned in the discussion is also not an adequate or acceptable source. Twitter cannot ordinarily be used as a reliable source, but even if it could be used in this instance that tweet only talks about speaking Gujarati (if Google translate serves me right), not about Gujarati nationality. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I want to add Nisha Rawal ethnicity. The link I provided says that her current husband says that she is of a particular ethnicity, which I think is a reasonable proof of what ethnicity she is, but this user is saying it is not Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion How do you think we can help? Please tell who's right and who's wrong Summary of dispute by FylindfotberserkPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:Fylindfotberserk#Nisha_Rawal discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
User talk:Fylindfotberserk#Lakhanis
![]() | I can't see a dispute here, likewise with the second dispute A145029 opened with Fylindfotberserk at the same time for a different article (also a nationality-related matter, closed by TransporterMan). Fylindfotberserk is correct regarding the fact that A145029's additions are original research/synthesis. — Alfie 21:20, 19 February 2018. I've added some additional reasons for closure at Fylindfotberserk's talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by A145029 on 19:34, 19 February 2018 (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 I want to add two links to Sultan Ali Lakhani about his birthplace and ethnicity and one link to Iqbal Ali Lakhani about his ethnicity, but this user is using lots of biased arguments to prevent this Have you tried to resolve this previously? We discussed about it. How do you think we can help? Please tell who is right and who is wrong Summary of dispute by FylindfotberserkPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:Fylindfotberserk#Lakhanis discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Scientific consensus
![]() | Nothing to do. There is a clear consensus against the position of the filing party on the article talk page. Since consensus has already been formed there's no dispute for us to resolve here, since the purpose of this forum and other dispute resolution at Wikipedia is to help editors to come to consensus. If the filing party wishes to continue to pursue this, about their only options will be attempting to continue to discuss it at the article talk page (though others need not reply) or filing a request for comments there. In light of the existing responses there, however, I certainly would not hold out much hope that either of those will succeed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Jamesmsnead on 16:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The stated definition of what constitutes a "scientific consensus" is based on citation (1). The cited source does not, from my review, comply with the Wikipedia guidelines for what constitutes an acceptable citation. The cited source is an organization's website that has, without authorship, created the cited definition to, as stated in the "about" page, advance their political position. This is not an authoritative academic source or a publisher's definition as required by the guidelines. I believe the citation should be removed. Others do not. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion has only brought derisive comments against me. How do you think we can help? The citation used should be reviewed to determine if it complies faithfully with the Wikipedia guidelines. Summary of dispute by DVdmPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by J. Johnson (JJ)Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Scientific consensus discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Medri Bahri
![]() | Closed as also pending in another forum. One of the editors has opened a Request for Comments on the same topic as the request for dispute resolution. A Request for Comments takes precedence over other forms of dispute resolution. Editors should participate in the RFC to resolve the dispute. Disruption of the RFC may be reported to WP:ANI. Otherwise, let the RFC run for 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview It's about Medri Bahri, a historical political entity with its center in the Eritrean highlands. One side believes that it came effectively to an end in 1879, when its last lord, Woldemichael Solomon, was imprisoned and an Ethiopian governor, Ras Alula, seized power. He remained the de facto and de jure ruler of the Eritrean highlands until 1889, when he was expelled by Eritrean guerillas and the Italians. The other side claims that this was not the end of Medri Bahri as a political entity, as relatives of Woldemichael continued their resistance against Ras Alula as guerialls, especially since 1885. Therefore the end date of Medri Bahri should be given as 1890, when the Italians declared the region as part of Italian Eritrea, plus Italian Eritrea should be named as successor in the infobox. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Requested and received third opinion, discussing with an admin. How do you think we can help? By deciding which side is correct. Summary of dispute by UknowofwikiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by François RobereI've been asked to opine to the matter through WP:3O, then later through my talk page. My analysis of the matter can be seen on the article's talk page. In short: the sources provided thus far support the conclusion that the kingdom of Medri Bahri ceased to exist in 1979 with the imprisonment of the king and the instillment of an Ethiopian governor in his place. I suspect some of the disagreement stems from a misunderstanding of the difference between the kingdom - the political entity - and the realm - the geographic expanse it once occupied; one of the sides may have seen the former used as a synonym for the latter - in the same way one might use the name of a historical duchy to refer to the region in once occupied - and resents the suggestion it lost its independence to a rivaling state. However the sources name both, and are clear as to which is which; which continued to exist through the Ethiopian rule, and which didn't. François Robere (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Talk:Medri Bahri discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Near-death experience
![]() | All socks have been properly dusted.Nothing more to indulge in:)~ Winged BladesGodric 16:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Perky28 on 20:25, 20 February 2018 (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 About a month ago, I was shocked to see the total disappearance of S. L. Thaler’s research from the WP page on near-death experience, along with all its supporting references. Knowing that for years this article has included his work, and then reading the personal attacks on its talk page, I was especially motivated to reintroduce his research. Then, after two reversions involving Jytdog, I attempted a compromise, simply adding references to the article so that readers would have the option to dig deeper into this highly relevant research. However, even that minor edit was rejected by Jytdog, who seems steadfastly resistant to any mention whatsoever of Thaler in this article. The irony is that the page cites the Journal of Near-Death Studies three times, as a primary sources for other researchers, but for some reason Thaler's peer-reviewed papers in this same journal are disallowed by Jytdog. Also, an article by a staff reporter for Scientific American serves as a secondary source in this article. However, for Thaler, a similar article doesn't even qualify as valid. Jytdog also disqualifies Thaler's peer-reviewed, secondary and primary sources out of Elsevier. I would think the papers' merit and relevance had already been determined prior to their publication by experts in the field. Other editors, such as Skeptical Brit, dismisses (with prejudice) a published article in Elsevier's most selective neural network journal, Neural Networks, simply calling it weird, and then deleting it. Jytdog, the SciAm article was published in the cellulose magazine, with another following in 1995, not just in archival html. Obviously there are different perspectives on the topic of NDE, and if one camp wants to dominate, they purposely leave out contradictory work. Besides, the Atlantic article was incomplete, possibly to widen the article's appeal among its non-mathematical readership. In the meantime, more thorough authors have repeatedly mentioned Thaler's work. The point is that the Thaler model is agnostic to brain anatomy, and discusses the phenomenon from first principles, namely non-linear switching elements (i.e., neurons) and synaptic integration. The argument typically goes over the head of the general public, but hardly a reason to obliterate all Thaler content and references. And with all DUE respect, the merit of his work has already been determined by peer review by some very reputable journals. Perky28 (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've tried, without success, to engage Jytdog on the article's talk page to seek a resolution. How do you think we can help? Neutral parties are needed to judge the validity of the references used in what was once the long-standing Computational Psychology section of this article. Summary of dispute by JytdogPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I think we need to get clarity on where everybody is coming from before we can turn and address content. I am still awaiting a response to this. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC) On the content issue, Perky keeps citing primary sources by Thaler, and an editorial rebutting Thaler. There was a hm! report in scientific american back in 1993 (see JSTOR 24941474 but if you look at sources providing authoritative overviews of NDE (say PMID 25357254, called "Almost 40 years investigating near-death experiences: an overview of mainstream scientific journals.", nor in the recent book ISBN 978-0-06-177725-7, or to grab something easy, this popular summary in the Atlantic) this "AI as a model for NDE" stuff isn't mentioned. Perky has been nonresponsive on this essential point. What that means is that this is UNDUE. I of course remain open to seeing sources about NDE generally that discuss this so that we can see that it is given WEIGHT by people in the field. This is the typical problem we have conflicted or advocacy editors - wanting to give UNDUE emphasis to pet theories (their own or those of others), but I haven't been able to have that discussion as the OP is not engaging. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Skeptical BritPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Near-death experience discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Slowly whitewashing Kulala page with false references
![]() | The parties have not had any extensive discussion of the issue on a talk page, which is a mandatory prerequisite to mediated-dispute-resolution.
For what it's worth, there's no dispute that the currently written content is accurately reflected from a very-reliable source and the sole bone of contention has been already explicitly laid-out by Sitush on the talk-page. Still, if anybody wishes, I can provide an OCR-grab of the G-books text at the t/p. I will also advise the filing editor to kindly disclose the previous accounts he/she may have used in Wikipedia and read about our strong prohibition upon any attempts to right great wrongs. Thankfully,~ Winged BladesGodric 15:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Swati salian on 14:42, 23 February 2018 (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 This is a page where false reference book is given to the contents as reliable source and original page given by author is whitewashed. Now even page is blocked from editing. Below is the reference book [1]References
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to talk on this matter .Many different users tried to solve the dispute but still not rectified. Please revert the kulala page back to original. How do you think we can help? Please revert the kulala page back to original. Or else remove the disputed contents from the page which is false. Summary of dispute by situshAdding disruptive information in the article ------"This has historically meant that they were the lowest-ranked of the Shudra castes in the Hindu varna system". Summary of dispute by neilnBlocking the article and users even if they try to talk in well behaved manner. Summary of dispute by justmangalorelack of patience on the matter Kulala discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Norristown State Hospital
![]() | Closed, after changing its name to Norristown State Hospital, which is the subject article, for multiple reasons. First, there has been no discussion on the article talk page, which is a precondition to any discussion here. Discussion on a user's talk page, while useful, is not a substitute for discussion on the article talk page. Second, the dispute, which has to do with copyright violation, is not the sort of dispute for which this noticeboard is designed. Copyright violation is a legal matter that Wikipedia takes seriously (even if few other web sites do). Third, although I have not reviewed the dispute in depth, it appears that administrator User:Diannaa is completely correct, especially if the filing party first copied the information to the hospital's web site, thus placing it under their copyright. Fourth, the filing editor should consider simply rewording the questioned material and editing the Wikipedia article cleanly. If the filing editor wants to pursue this further, they should first discuss it on the article talk page, and should be aware that editors who fail to heed warnings about copyright violation are usually blocked, because Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview I have been attempting to resolve some of the issues with the article for Norristown State Hospital. This Administrator lays claims the the entirity of my edits have been pulled from an outside source, Asylum Projects (where I composed a separate article). In doing so she reverted the article to its prior form. I have made the request from her to remove all the portions of the article that she feels are problematic, but to keep those sections that are not. She wrongly claims that the whole of the article is taken from an outside source, and refuses to make the restoration of any text. This can be easily determined with a cursory glance, as the article in question has several sections that have no parallel on Asylum Projects. Have you tried to resolve this previously? This issue was discussed with Diannaa, but she remains firm in her decision to remove the page and freeze its content. How do you think we can help? I would like to see some arbitration take place, or at the very least, a second opinion regarding the nature of this dispute. The content in question seems ipse dixit. Ultimately, I would like the non-disputed material restored, as I had originally requested. Summary of dispute by DiannaaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:Diannaa discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Bareun Future Party
![]() | Pending in other dispute resolution process (Requested Move). DRN does not handle disputes pending in other DR processes. - TransporterMan (TALK) 01:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Kiteinthewind on 21:13, 26 February 2018 (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:Garam has insisted the article be named Bareunmirae Party, based on sources that are in Korean, not English. I renamed the article to Bareun Future Party, based on English sources in South Korea, and based on established conventions here. However, Garam has insisted that we rename the article, renaming it numerous times, and now accusing me of disruption. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have cited all relevant rules and articles with Garam, numerous times. How do you think we can help? A third party needs to step in to enforce established conventions on Wikipedia, and remind Garam, once again in the milieu of times, that rules need to be followed here. Summary of dispute by GaramPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Bareun Future Party discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Transylvanian peasant revolt#Neutrality II
![]() | Closed as abandoned. After several tries to get the editors to identify what the issues are, there has been no response to the last request after waiting for 48 hours. The editors may resume discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Transylvanian peasant revolt. If they identify specific issues, they may use one or more Requests for Comments. They may file a request for formal mediation, but the mediator there is likely to expect regular (as opposed to intermittent) participation, just as I did. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI, but it is better to resolve content disputes without discussing conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Rgvis says that the article Transylvanian peasant revolt is unbalanced and disputes its neutrality. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I sought assistance from Wikiproject:Romania and from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I also changed the text, taking into account suggestions from members of the latter noticeboard, but Rqvis still maintains his/her view. All my attempts to persuade him to explain his/her concerns have failed, because he/she accusses me of misconduct and refers to "other editors" who allegedly share his/her concerns. I involved Seraphim System because Rgvis accuses me of changing his/her edits. How do you think we can help? I do not know. I hope you will know. Thank you for your assistance. Summary of dispute by RgvisPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Seraphim SystemPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It does look like a response was inserted in the middle of my comment, but this could have been a good faith error. It did not alter my comment. Beyond that, I don't remember much about this dispute and I was only briefly involved so I am not sure how much help I will be, but I am willing to participate if it would be helpful. Seraphim System (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Transylvanian peasant revolt#Neutrality II discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorOkay. I will try to mediate this dispute. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules and follow the rules. Comment on content only, and not on contributors. Be civil and concise. Take note of the rule that you are expected to reply to my requests for inputs every 48 hours. (I see a mention of time constraints. If you cannot respond within 48 hours, it may be necessary to close this case, and formal mediation, which can take months, may work better.) Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issues are with regard to what should be in the article? (Talk only about the article, not about the process or the editors.) Robert McClenon (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
First statements by editorsThank you for your suggestion. Why do you think, the replacement of the Vlach ethnonym is necessary? Please note that two "neutral" historians cited in the article (Joseph Held and Jean W. Sedlar) insist on the use of the Vlach ethnonym in the context. Borsoka (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Second statement by moderatorComment in the section for statements by editors. Reply only to the moderator and not to each other. It appears that the only real issue is whether to use the ethnonym 'Vlach' or 'Romanians'. Is that correct? If so, please justify your position on the ethnonym. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC) As the moderator, I am neutral, but I need to be persuaded that it is necessary to change the ethnonym. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Second statements by editorsThis is only the first issue. Why "Romanian" instead "Vlach":
As for Jean W. Sedlar, she does not insist on the use of any term ("Romanian" or "Vlach", "Hungarian" or "Magyar", etc): [18]. (Rgvis (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)) Third statement by moderatorAn editor states above, "This is only the first issue", about changing a denonym. I had asked the editors to identify the issues, not to identify one issue at a time. Will each editor please identify all of the issues that they think need to be addressed? If it is necessary to provide a long list of issues, provide a long list of issues, but, if so, I may find it necessary to refer this dispute to formal mediation, a lengthy and careful process. Please state what the issues as to article content are. Be civil, and as concise as possible. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Third statements by editors
PS: it would still be useful for the moderator to express his point of view on the first mentioned issue. (Rgvis (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC))
Fourth statement by moderatorWe have a list of four or five issues that one of the editors think should be addressed. This noticeboard is normally for relatively simple content disputes that take one week to two weeks to resolve, not for ones that have multiple aspects that go on for weeks or months. I have several options. The first and least intrusive would be to put this case on hold and see if the editors can work collaboratively on the article talk page to improve the article. The second would be for the editors to make a list of issues that they think should be addressed, and then have a multi-part Request for Comments that will run for 30 days (after this case is closed as taken to the RFC). The third will be for the editors to agree to formal mediation. I would like to ask the editors to give three-part Yes-No answers, to whether they are willing to use each of the three options. By the way, if you say No to any of the three options, please indicate concisely why. I don't like it isn't adequate. To restate one of the original rules, you are expected to reply within 48 hours, and it would be helpful to reply in 24 to 36 hours. Which of the methods of proceeding are agreeable? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors(1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (I would prefer option 1, because the opening of new procedures could be time-consuming.) Borsoka (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Sure, no problem (Y/Y/Y). (Rgvis (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)) Fifth statement by moderatorI will suspend the rules against back-and-forth discussion and against editing the article. Discuss the article here; edit the article when consensus on any particular point is reached. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. If this method of working together to improve the article works, good. If there is incivility, I may give one warning, or I may fail the moderation. If anyone needs a neutral comment, I will be here; otherwise, just keep working, but be civil. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Fifth space for extended discussion by editors@Seraphim System:, my primary concern about the term "Romanian" is that it is strictly connected to a state (Romania) which came into being in 1859, centuries after the events discussed in the article. Borsoka (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Rgvis:, why do you think that 16th-century Italian authors' remarks about the Vlachs' ethnonym are relevant in connection with an article in English WP about a 15th-century event? Please also remember that Sedlar exclusively uses the term Vlach when writing about the revolt ([19], page 404). Taking into account that the neutrality of the article is debated, because it allegedly prefers the "Hungarian POV" (whatever it is), I think we should prefer the terminology of neutral (non-Hungarian and non-Romanian) scholars. Held and Sedlar are neutral scholars and Held dedicated a whole article to the events discussed in the article (he uses the variant Wlach). Borsoka (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC) It's about ethnicity and not the nation state. Anyhow, among the English authors there is no such rule to use predominantly the word "vlach". (see above the "Second statements by editors" section). (Rgvis (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC))
Sixth statement by moderatorWe will start all over at the beginning. Will each editor please state, in bullet form, what all of the issues are that they think need to be addressed? Then we can decide whether moderated discussion here will be useful or whether another forum is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors.
|
Talk:2018 Hong Kong bus accident#Condolences
![]() | Closed for various reasons, including lack of a moderator. It is difficult to find a volunteer who will moderate a dispute in which one of the principal parties is an unregistered editor, which makes things harder. The unregistered editor is still advised to register an account and resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion there is still inconclusive, another request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The dispute is quite simple which is to whether to remove the the "Mainland Chinese government" section in the article 2018_Hong_Kong_bus_accident (see one of the disputed edits). The other user "Citobun" insists that the content of this section is "inconsequential" and "propagandistic" and should thus be removed. Whilst I believe that that section should be kept. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to discuss this isuue with the other user in the talkpage. Unfortunately we two simply cannot reach a consensus and still adhere to our own views. How do you think we can help? Give us a third-party and neutral opinion so that we can resolve it. Summary of dispute by CitobunPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This Beijing IP (as well as 223.104.19.131, using a dynamic IP I guess) is an WP:SPA going about pushing the viewpoint of the Chinese government here and there. When I originally wrote the "reactions" section I purposely left out inconsequential reactions, like token politician condolences, because many officials and governments expressed such sentiments, and I don't think it's useful to fill up the article with this sort of cruft, especially from parties who are not involved with the incident. Upon removing the section I was promptly accused of being "anti-China". It is apparent from IP's editing behavior and attitude that the purpose of adding this section is simply to assert Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong. Secondly, by "propagandistic" I refer to the melodramatic tone of the original content. It wasn't a quotation either. The version I revised (before deleting it entirely) is better but still odd and still ultimately kind of pointless to include. I am pretty sure the above two IPs are related to 171.10.177.144?? I suspect sock puppetry, or collusion among Chinese political agenda editors, through some outside means of communications, who are edit warring on the same few articles. I also want to add that we already got a third opinion at the talk page. And lastly, it makes no sense to call me "anti-China" for this considering I was the one who originally added the responses from Carrie Lam (the most prominent pro-China figure in Hong Kong) as well as the pro-Beijing Federation of Trade Unions. The difference is that Lam and the FTU's comments had actual implications, whereas the comments from the mainland government were just inconsequential token formalities. Citobun (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 223.89.144.195Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:2018 Hong Kong bus accident#Condolences discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Just one thing I would like to point out, the original content of this section was not added by me, but by NYKTNE (talk · contribs) through this edit.--223.89.144.195 (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
|
User talk:TheDragonFire300#Don_Baldwin
![]() | Closed as premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Don Baldwin. Discussion on a user talk page, although useful, is not a substitute for discussion on the article talk page. Please continue discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview This IP editor thinks that their memory of a television program (which may be false, but I don't know) is better than a referenced fact. Their edits concern Don Baldwin. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Informing them what citation policies Wikipedia has How do you think we can help? Review the TV program the IP editor mentioned. Educate them on why citations are important, or why they are bad. Summary of dispute by 12.144.5.2Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:TheDragonFire300#Don_Baldwin discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
User talk:ScrapIronIV#WP:LYRICS_discussion
![]() | This noticeboard isn't a forum for discussion of issues about policies and guidelines, except as to how those policies and guidelines apply to specific articles. This discussion can be continued on the talk page of the appropriate policy or guideline page, such as WT:LYRICS. This noticeboard is intended to resolve disagreements about article content. The application of the policies and guidelines to any specific national anthem can be carried on at the talk page for that anthem. In any case, discussion on article talk pages, user talk pages, or project talk pages is better than edit-warring. If you aren't sure where to discuss, you may try to discuss on any talk page, or may ask for advice at the Help Desk or the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview User:ScrapIronIV claims that national anthems should not be part of Wikipedia articles: I eventually counter with the idea of adding the lyrics with a template to transwiki the content over to Wikisource (which seems to agree with the eventual goal declared by the user: to remove it to an external source). However, the user in question has negated WP:NPOV and is now accusing me of edit warring (on my user talk page) after what I assume is consensus was reached on this talk page. (The dispute in question concerns some articles of national anthems: Meniń Qazaqstanym and National anthem of Mongolia). (This is why the discussion has not taken place on an article talk page)
I have contacted the user on the talk page, who has either avoided discussion altogether or provided points I have refuted. How do you think we can help? We should decide on whether the anthems should stay on Wikipedia as-is, be moved over to Wikisource, or be removed entirely. Summary of dispute by ScrapIronIVPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:ScrapIronIV#WP:LYRICS_discussion discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Falcon Heavy#Super-Heavy lift or not?
![]() | Closed as not likely to be useful. This appears to be a case of one-against-many. If discussion on the article talk page hasn't persuaded multiple editors, moderated discussion isn't likely to do so either. The two choices for the filing editor are to accept that consensus is against them and acquiesce, or to use a Request for Comments. If this isn't a case of one-against-many, then a request for formal mediation or a Request for Comments may be the next steps. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Orbital rockets are classified by NASA in several rough categories of payload capacity to low Earth orbit (LEO): Medium-lift launch vehicles between 2,000 and 20,000 kg, Heavy-lift launch vehicles from 20 to 50 tonnes, and Super heavy-lift launch vehicles above 50 tonnes. The dispute concerns whether the recently-developed Falcon Heavy rocket should be called "heavy" or "super heavy" with regard to the NASA classification. This rocket has recently conducted its first flight, carrying Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster as a dummy payload which weighs about 1300 kg, so its maximum lift capacity has not been demonstrated yet. Marketing literature by SpaceX, the rocket manufacturer, lists a LEO capacity of 63,400 kg. Editor Winged Brick uses this theoretical capacity to assert in wikivoice that Falcon Heavy is a super heavy-lift launch vehicle, citing a source (Forbes) that merely lists the announced capacity, makes no reference to the NASA classification, and does not even use the words "super heavy". I have advised this editor repeatedly that they are engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS. When asked for sources that would explicitly make the "super heavy" claim, they evade the question and ask me to provide sources to the contrary, i.e. asserting that Falcon Heavy is not a super-heavy-class rocket. I cannot prove a negative, but I did provide statements by SpaceX themselves calling their rocket a "heavy-lift launch vehicle" and company founder Elon Musk alluding to the potential development of a derivative rocket which would be called "Falcon Super Heavy", and would roughly match the performance of the retired Saturn V Moon rocket. In other announcements, Musk has stated that Falcon Heavy would never fly in its expendable mode, the only configuration that may enable it to lift more than 50 tonnes. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Enjoined the opposing editor several times to provide a source that would avoid WP:SYNTHESIS. How do you think we can help? Clarify whether the disputed statement constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS. Suggest other ways to explain the "heaviness" of this rocket, so that all parties would be satisfied, and our readers would be fully and correctly informed. Summary of dispute by Winged BrickPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
NASA has a category for Super-Heavy Lift Launch vehicles delineated by their lift capability to low-earth orbit. Greater than 50 Metric tons places a vehicle in the super-heavy lift category. SpaceX advertises over 60 mT to LEO on their web site advertising launch services. They have published a price of $150M USD for a fully expendable, 60 mT launch. The rocket has flown once and more launches have been sold. It is a proven rocket with demonstrable lift capability. I can provide references for all of this, but this has already been done to the point of nausea in the respective discussion and edits. There are no references that put the LEO expendable payload ability of the FH below 60 MT. Good luck fining one. These are facts. --Winged Brick (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Sarilho1Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I've only get into the discussion because I've notice an edit summary by Winged Brick (talk · contribs) which I find childish for Wikipedia standards: "No, the status quo WAS super-heavy before SpaceX haters jumped in. This is REFERENCED material". I find this and others comments by the user regarding the subject part of an inappropriate conduct in Wikipedia, so I advised him/her to cut with that attitude. This had nothing to do with the discussion in question, being simply a call for a civilized and respectful debate, which I felt it was lacking. Regarding the subject, from my poor understanding, the category in question is defined by NASA in a draft but it is not used much outside that framework. For such reason, it doesn't specify which categories each launch system would go. It is not meant to be a descriptor for current launch systems, so it lefts open to interpretation which is exactly the criteria for inclusion (does it need to flight with such weight to be included or not?). The articles in Wikipedia about it are entirely based on that reference defining the category and in bunch of references describing how other launch systems would fit the category. I feel we might be in a situation where Wikipedia sets or popularizes a certain language for a certain field, which I don't find recommendable, since we might get into a Wikipedia's bootstrap paradox. I personally favour an introductory description of Falcon Heavy that doesn't make use of such classification. Given the specifically of the field, if such solution is not possible, I would prefer to have Falcon Heavy described as a Heavy-lift launch vehicle with an appropriate note describing how it theoretically can be flown in a super-heavy configuration until a) it indeed flies in a super-heavy configuration or b) a source is provided, preferably from NASA since it was NASA who created the category, that describes the launcher as a super-heavy launch system. Summary of dispute by BatteryIncludedPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
You acknowledge that a Super Heavy lift launch vehicles is designed for >50 tons payload, yet refuse to do so in the article. It is designed to do so, and it will in due time. It is like saying a car with 4 seats is certified for maximum one person until it gets 3 passengers. Nobody at Super heavy-lift launch vehicle article has contested listing Falcon Heavy as a super heavy; have you asked over there for consensus at deleting Falcon Heavy from that article as well? On the same premise, the SLS rocket, the Long March 9 rocket and the BFR rocket are also designed to be super-heavy lift, and it says so in their own articles, yet those rockets have not flown once and I don't see you deleting "super-heavy" from those articles. Why?
BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AppablePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Falcon Heavy#Super-Heavy lift or not? discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Kashmir conflict#Nimitz replacement
![]() | Closed. There are two-and-one-half problems. First, although I didn't state it here, I did state in my general rules that the article should not be edited while moderated discussion is in progress. Participants are responsible for having read the rules. There was editing and reverting of the article while this discussion was in progress. Second, there is discussion on the article talk page while moderated discussion is in progress. That is one-and-one-half problems. Third, discussion here cannot continue while dispute resolution is pending in another content forum or conduct forum. There is a thread at WP:ANI. The specific issue at WP:ANI may not be related, and may not be valid, but this noticeboard cannot try to handle an issue that is also being discussed anywhere else. The editors are advised to resume their discussion on the article talk page, where they were already discussing it anyway. At this point, I will recommend that if the parties want help in resolving the issue in a collaborative fashion, they ask for formal mediation. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI or AE:Arbitration Enforcement, and the editors are advised that it would be a good idea to avoid Arbitration Enforcement, which often results in usefully draconian remedies. Try requesting formal mediation. Best wishes. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview On 9 February, I made an edit to the Kashmir conflict page with the edit summary Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page discussion at Talk:Kashmir conflict#Nimitz replacement. How do you think we can help? Interrogate and resolve the claim of NPOV failure. Summary of dispute by Dilpa kaurPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Mar4dPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by NadirAliKautilya3's claim that there is no contradiction between the sources is WP:MISREPRESENTATION. Here's the Ganguly source[1]
A few things to note here. Nimitz was a UN appointee and it was India which took the lead in demanding the removal of a UN appointed plebiscite administrator. So clearly the whole problem here is India's fault as it bad to pick issues with the U.N. Yet Kautilya3's edits seek to place the blame solely on Pakistan as the reason for the stall in negotiations for a plebiscite. This is why his edit fails WP:NPOV as it misses India's role in stirring up the matter. Now here is the contradiction. Rizvi is saying that after agreeing to India's demand Mr Bogra (Pakistani PM) backtracked from the agreement to remove Nimitz. This contradicts Ganguly who says that after the agreement to remove Nimitz was done there was an outcry in the Pakistani press but still Bogra ("to his credit") resisted it and managed to keep the negotiations with India on track. Ganguly then says the real problem started with the US announcement to send military aid to Pakistan.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC) References
Talk:Kashmir conflict#Nimitz replacement discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorI will try to act as the moderator. I don't claim to have any particular knowledge about the Kashmir conflict. I expect the editors to explain any details that are important. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules and follow the rules. I will remind the editors that ArbCom discretionary sanctions apply to India and Pakistan. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Now: Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think is the issue with regard to article content? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC) First statements by editorsThere are two issues here causing the dispute. 1. The removal of content about India's fault in creating trouble. Ganguly tells us India took the lead in getting rid of a UN appointed plebiscite administrator.[1] So that clearly shows India started the problem. But this edit [32] removes the fact that India did not approve of Nimitz, thus laying the onus on Pakistan for stalling proceedings. This half-picture misrepresents actual facts. 2. Bogra agreed to India's demand that Nimitz be removed. Both the sources which are cited - Rizvi and Ganguly - agree on this point. But there is a contradiction on the second part, but Kautilya3 sees no contradiction and claims both sources say the same thing[33] when actually they do not. The contradiction between the sources is that Rizvi says that Bogra backtracked on the agreement to remove Nimitz. But Ganguly says that Bogra did not backtrach, he in fact resisted media pressure from his country to backtrack and actually kept the negotiations with India on track. The real problem started later when the US announced its intent to give Pakistan military aid.[1]--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC) References
In any case, moving on in the interest of finding a resolution, here are short answers to NadirAli's points: 1. Nehru was proposing a new bilateral process, which was quite different from the UN process. There was no role for the UN in Nehru's process, and certainly not for the UN-appointed plebiscite administrator. Language like "India's fault" and "creating trouble" is quite out of line. 2. The paragraph under discussion, both before and after the edit ends with the "stall in the proceedings". Did Bogra accept the Nimitz replacement before this or after? After the "stall", other things happened that soured the deal very quickly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC) In more detail:
The WP:NPOV issue is the lack of WP:BALANCE complained about in my previous reply's point no.2. The first WP:NPOV problem is the WP:CHERRYPICKING of facts which ignore India's role in stalling the proceedings. 1. We are not interested in blantant WP:OR about why Nehru wanted to throw a neutral body such as the United Nations out of negotiations to achieve his ends (whatever they were). We are interested in what the sources say. I am not proposing that language such as 'India's fault' be in the content. That is a talkpost explanation of source content. What I want mentioned is that India took the lead in kicking out a UN appointed plebiscite administrator (Nimitz). If this important point is not mentioned and only Bogra's part is mentioned it amounts to WP:CHERRYPICKING which creates a false impression to the reader of Pakistani guilt and Indian innocence. 2. Your sentence sourced to Rizvi ″Having agreed to Nehru's proposal in Delhi without any qualifications, Bogra later objected to the replacement of Admiral Nimitz as the plebiscite administrator″ contradicts Ganguly who says ″They also reached an informal agreement that the initial UN appointed plebiscite administrator, Adm. Chester W. Nimitz of the United States, would have to be replaced. India had taken the lead in pushing for Nimitz's removal because it had perceived a pro-Pakistani bias on the part of the United States in the Security Council debates. However, when word of this informal agreement became public, an outcry ensued against the Indian position throughout influential sections of the Pakistani press. Nehru and Bogra, to their mutual credit, nonetheless managed to limit the damage and placed the negotiations back on track. Their success, however, was short lived. In late February 1954, the Eisenhower administration announced its intention to provide military assistance to Pakistan.″ Now in the interests of moving ahead to find a mutually acceptable resolution you will need to WP:BALANCE the sources and show us your draft for checking. Correct information about the true history behind the whole state of affairs.
Second statement by moderatorIt appears that the issue has to do with the wording of the statement about the issue about the plebiscite administrator. Will each editor please propose their one-paragraph text of how they think the article should read about that, and tell where in the article it should go? If there are any issues other than this wording, please tell what they are, and we may have to discuss them separately. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Second statements by editorsThe old content already has these two sentences:
I am opposed to the phrase "India's lack of approval of Nimitz", because it suggests that India had something against Nimitz. Rather, this "lack of approval" followed from the principle that the plebiscite administrator not be from one of the major powers. As far as we know, Bogra agreed with the principle. So, I would suggest something like:
It seems best not drag in Bogra here, because his own predilections seem to have been quite favourable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC) References
.
My proposed content is this:
The sources cited document the Indian lead in removing Nimitz and Bogra keeping the negotiations on track despite public disapproval, these things can't be overlooked. References
Third statement by moderatorThere have been two proposed wordings for the text of the issue about the plebiscite administrator. Will each editor please indicate whether they are willing to accept the other wording? Will each editor also please propose a compromise wording? Do not argue against the other editor, or about the thinking of dead politicians. If there are any more off-topic remarks, I will have to fail the moderation. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors or irrelevant material. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Third statements by editorsMy objections to NadirAli's proposed wording: It is entirely dependent on one book: Sumit Ganguly's Conflict Unending. It is not corroborated by other sources, especially historians like Gowher Rizvi and Sarvepalli Gopal, which are in turn valided by American diplomat Howard B. Schaffer. Ganguly cites precisely on one source for his entire discusion, an American diplomatic dispatch from Pakistan. We cannot possibly take his views on Nehru to be authentic. Secondly, both Gowher Rizvi and Ayesha Jalal, well-versed in Pakistani history, point out that Bogra was a powerless prime minster and that the entire Pakistani establishment was arrayed against the agreement reached by him with Nehru. In the light of this, I think there is no need to overplay the Pakistani efforts. More details below. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I stand by my peviously proposed text which is already a compromise version. I reproduce it here for the record:
References
References
Fourth statement by moderatorOkay. Will each editor please again state only the text that they propose for the wording about the plebiscite administrator? The matter will be resolved by an RFC (unless I have to fail the discussion). Robert McClenon (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors
--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC) My proposed wording (representing a compromise):
The green bit represents the existing content in the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
References
Statement by WBGRobert, whilst I seldom interfere in cases handled by other volunteers, I think you do have to indulge in some heavy-reading of boring texts etc., to resolve the dispute.Much of the now-collapsed texts is significant to the content-dispute.~ Winged BladesGodric 06:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
|
Talk:David Hogg_(activist)#Business_Insider
![]() | Filer is currently blocked and discussion is taking place at ANI. Nihlus 18:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by ScratchMarshall on 03:01, 3 March 2018 (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 2 March 2018 in special:diff/828496734 MrX removed my talk page contribution. In it I had added the following source related to the article.
In the edit summary MrX called it a "WP:BLP violation". I would like input regarding whether or not this appears to violate BLP, and if so, in what way. I would also like to know if I should be directed to a more advanced kind of dispute resolution. In special:diff/828508698 when I asked for more information about why I was reverted, and what part of BLP did the content that I added violate, I was told things like:
I don't understand how my above-cited reference meets any of these criteria. I am looking for a mediator who may have some incite as to what MrX means about me violating BLP with this source. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? After he reverted my contribution to the article talk page, I contacted MrX on his User talk in response to a warning he left on my talk. Although he replied twice, he erased my last reply in special:diff/828524383 saying "leave me alone". So pursuing 1 on 1 resolution no longer seems possible. How do you think we can help? I am hoping others will actually address my questions instead of ignoring them, will explain if/how my posting this WUSA article violates BLP, and explain to MrX the importance of communicating objections clearly to editors he disapproves of. Summary of dispute by MrXPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:David Hogg_(activist)#Business_Insider discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Ashkenazi Jews
![]() | Closed. There has not been any recent discussion on the article talk page. The history of editing of the article involves sockpuppetry and is not in the scope of this noticeboard. Good-faith editors may discuss article content on the article talk page, may request edits, and, if they are autoconfirmed, may edit the article. (The article is semi-protected and cannot be edited by unregistered editors or by new editors, but new registered editors can be autoconfirmed registered editors.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I've tried to make the section on the Khazar hypothesis read like this: In the late 19th century, it was proposed that the core of today's Ashkenazi Jewry are genetically descended from a hypothetical Khazarian Jewish diaspora who had migrated westward from modern Russia and Ukraine into modern France and Germany (as opposed to the currently held theory that Jews migrated from France and Germany into Eastern Europe). The results of genetic studies conflict on the theory. A 2013 trans-genome study carried out by 30 geneticists, from 13 universities and academies, from 9 countries, assembling the largest data set available to date, for assessment of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic origins found no evidence of Khazar origin among Ashkenazi Jews. "Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations, and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region", [163] the authors concluded. The results of other studies support the theory, for example, "A MOSAIC OF PEOPLE: THE JEWISH STORY AND A REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA EVIDENCE" by Ellen Levy-Coffman and "The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses" by Eran Elhaik. There are people who want to keep evidence supporting the Khazar hypothesis out of the article in furtherance of a political agenda. This is completely inappropriate. Politics and science don't mix. But, the moderators have sided with these people and labeled my edits vandalism. They've blocked me from posting and all discussion of the Khazar hypothesis has been deleted from the talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've requested formal mediation. The request was rejected. How do you think we can help? I don't know. Summary of dispute by NishidaniPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Sro23Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ashkenazi Jews discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Matthew Island_and_Hunter_Island
![]() | I am going to take the initiative and close this dispute as being better suited to a Request for Comments than to moderated discussion. This is a dispute that has been going on very sporadically for months or years with a large number of editors. What is really needed is a vehicle to establish binding consensus. In Wikipedia, that is the purpose of a Request for Comments. Anyone who wants help with an RFC may ask me on my talk page for help. General questions about RFCs may be asked at the RFC project talk page, the Teahouse, or the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview For nearly 6 years already there's an ongoing dispute on "Matthew Island and Hunter Island" Talkpage about whether a section about the Federal Republic of Lostisland - a micronation with claims over the island, something that has been highlighted in a number of independent sources - merits an inclusion. I'd be willing to accept when the micronation's claim was first added in 2012 it was, perhaps, indeed of questionable notability, since that however it's been mentioned in Vanuatu Daily Post, on Hawaii Public Radio, in a French book, in a Lonely Planet guide and in a number of other sources. Unfortunately however User:Meters keeps on insisting the content is "non-notable" and "undue" regardless of how many sources report on it, and it very much looks like he would keep on insisting on that regardless of how many new sources emerge in the future. User:Meters claims a consensus has been reached to not include the section, this however is not the case as one can well see from the discussions on the talkpage. Under the existing circumstances I have no choice but to bring the issue to dispute resolution. Have you tried to resolve this previously? An extensive discussion took place on the Talkpage but to no avail, I'm not sure what else can be done. How do you think we can help? I'd appreciate if someone more experienced helped to reach a consensus about the issue, something that so far hasn't been reached. Summary of dispute by MetersPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by CkatzPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by BarnabyJoePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by CipikaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by AuburnAttack21Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by CaseyOHamlinPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by LeodescalPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Jeff in CAPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by JohnuniqPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DenysTezdzhanenkoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Will Sn0wPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Joél be backPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Matthew Island_and_Hunter_Island discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Proposal 4
![]() | Closed as also pending as a conduct dispute at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban . The disputes at the article talk page and at WP:ANI both appear to be multi-part, and it is hard to tell exactly what the extent is to which there may be a content dispute that isn't rolled into the messy conduct dispute. This noticeboard doesn't handle conduct disputes or disputes that involve ongoing conduct issues. We will let the dispute run its course at WP:ANI. If there is a content dispute that isn't addressed, after the conduct issues are wrapped up, a new request can be filed here (but please first verify that there has been adequate civil discussion at the article talk page and no conduct allegations). In the meantime, the community will resolve the conduct issues at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Is the background information about why the school was founded relevant to the article. Note the long discussion that took place here before editors were convinced that this school was responding to a poverty situation. Articles should show what is distinctive about a particular school, and notable statistics in the references give a good indication why this school fits into the Cristo Rey Network. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None. How do you think we can help? By suggesting that they unblock the article and allow the change. All improvements that I have attempted to the article have been reverted. Summary of dispute by AlansohnSummary of dispute by LionelPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by The BannerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Just another attempt to get his spamming into the article. There is consensus not to add his spam, and mr. jzsj plain ignores that. There is no dispute here, but just a plain refusel by mr. jzsj to face the music. If there comes an outcome he does not like, I am sure he will ignore it as he did quite a number of times by now. The Banner talk 22:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Even the selection of participants is biased, with a lot of people disagreeing with jzsj left out. The Banner talk 22:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 32.218.43.17Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
As Banner has stated, this is another attempt by Jzsj to ignore the fact that consensus on the article talk page was opposed to his proposal. Is it also an attempt to deflect from the recent topic ban proposal regarding his editing? 32.218.152.54 (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by John from IdegonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The proposer is at ANI for WP:TE on this very article. This should be procedurally closed. John from Idegon (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Proposal 4 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Alpha Centauri
![]() | Closed as failed. The filing editor said, among other things, "Tell us what to do." I have, among other things, tried to tell the editors how to work with my help to resolve this dispute. The editors are going on and on in ways that are beyond the scope of moderation, lengthy discussions about mathematics and sources, complaints about the gender of pronouns, and other matters, not being concise. The editors should either go back to the article talk page, where they can argue until the grey aliens come home from Alpha Centauri, while being civil and avoiding personal attacks, or they can request formal mediation, but that may not work either if they don't cooperate with that mediator, or one of them can go to WP:ANI, knowing that that is a crap shoot as to whether anyone is sanctioned and who, or they can send a radio signal to Alpha Centauri that might be answered late in 2026 CE. I've tried. Good luck. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | |||
---|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I edited a paragraph which was badly written (even though I think it should simply be removed). The person who had written it immediately reverted my edit. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I explained my edit on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Tell us what to do. Summary of dispute by Arianewiki1Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Alpha Centauri discussionThe changes need to be by consensus, and verifiable without WP:OR - original research. No reliable source no consensus. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
First statement by moderatorI am willing to try to resolve this dispute if the editors will accept my moderation. (If any editor wants a different moderator, all they have to do is ask.) Please read the rules for moderated discussion. I will repeat the rule to be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts may make the poster feel better, but they do not communicate effectively. I will also restate that Wikipedia does not permit original research. That includes arithmetic with regard to stellar motion. Now: Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what the issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC) First statements by editorsFirst of all, let me say that the issue is not the calculations that I did (on the talk page!). I did not put anything into the article based on my calculations. The issue is just the edit that I did on February 26. She reverted my edit saying that we have to have consensus. So we're stuck. See Talk:Alpha Centauri from February 26 on. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Second statement by moderatorOne editor has made a statement, which is that they made an edit and it was reverted, saying that consensus is needed. The edit in fact was extensive, and it might be useful to break it into multiple edits, each of which can be discussed separately, in which case the editors would not be "stuck". Try making the edit piecemeal and discussing each part. It the other editor does not reply in 24 hours, this thread will be closed due to lack of response, and participation here is voluntary. If either editor continues not to discuss, read WP:DISCFAIL. However, breaking an edit into smaller edits often facilitates discussion. Regardless of whether there was original research, original research is not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Do not try to go to Alpha Centauri to do any original research for the article, anyway. The rule that there is no deadline in Wikipedia does not give us time to wait for interstellar travel. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Second statements by editorsThis was removed without reason nor consensus: "Changes in position angle (θ) are calculated as; θ − θo = μα × sin α × (t − to ), where; α = right ascension (in degrees), μα is the common proper motion (cpm.) expressed in degrees, and θ and θo are the current position angle and calculated position angle at the different epochs." The remaining text to presumably to improve the 'English'. This statement: "Furthermore, other small changes also occur with the binary star's orbital elements. For example, in the size of the semi-major axis of the orbital ellipse will increasing by 0.03 arcsec per century." to "During all this the view from Earth of the binary star's mutual orbit changes. For example, the angular size of the axis of the orbital ellipse will increase by 0.03 arcsec per century." Is simply wrong, as the reference given does not say this. The true orbit itself does not change but only the orientation elements, especially the semi-major axis, but also the inclination, nodes, etc. The linked "orbital elements" partial explains this. Open statement by Eric Kvaalen : "Took out a footnote after asking its author on the talk page for an explanation and getting none." is false, because that what the given reference says. Changing it really needs consensus. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I wrote way back on January 4 that the footnote doesn't make sense and that if she didn't give a reference I would delete it. As for the sentences about orbital elements, it's not my version that is wrong but hers. Her version says that there are changes in the orbital elements, which she now says is false. My version corrected it to just say that our view of the orbit changes, so it looks different. Her version says the semi-major axis increases (not true), whereas my version just says that the angular size of the orbital ellipse increases (which is true). I don't know exactly what the reference says, but I'm sure it supports what I say and not her version. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Third statement by moderatorOkay. One last time. Discuss here while this discussion is still in progress. I will ask each editor to identify any edits that they want made to the article. Identify only the edits. Comment on content, not contributors. If you are satisfied with the current article content, you may say so. Just say what you want edited. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Also, please have the courtesy to refer to an editor as they have requested. We can't discuss content here while conduct is being discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Third statements by editorsAraine never asked me to refer to Ariane in the neuter gender, and Ariane referred to Ariane's self as "she" (talk page, Jan. 4). I will not refer to Ariane as "it" though. I have managed to find some of the pages of the book that Ariane refers to via Google Books, here. From this I see that when Heintz speaks of orbital elements he means:
In summary, the orbit doesn't change, it's just our view of it that changes. As for the formula which Ariane put in a footnote, it's true that it's in this reference. But it seems wrong to me. It says, for example, that if one star is directly north of the other right now, and they are both moving east, then the first star will appear to move either clockwise or counterclockwise around the other depending on where in the sky it is. Doesn't make sense. It's obviously meant to be just an approximation for small values of In any case, Heintz says that this change in θ can be neglected in most cases. Frankly, as I've said before, I think we should drop the whole paragraph and the footnote. It's obvious information (the fact that the orbit looks different as the star system moves by), and not very interesting to those who want to know about Alpha Centauri. I say either drop the paragraph or use my compromise which I did when I edited it on February 26. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
|