This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.
Anthropology, Public Anthropology
No talk page discussion, as required by this noticeboard. Will discuss on listing editor's talkpage. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
As an instructor at a university, I have my upper-level Anthropology Theory students writing Wikipedia entries for their class assignment. In all of the cases so far, their entries have been removed. It seems surprising that this should happen in every instance, and I am inquiring if this is a common occurence. For the Anthropology entry, we have tried to add material to it, and a user Maunus has taken down everything within 24-48 hours. We have gone to the talk page, and tried to resolve it. He has also personal message'ed one of the students with his concerns about our entry, which could be seen as an intimidation tactic. At this point, no one is able to add anything to the Anthropology main page. The talk page for Anthropology lists concerns with Maunus up to a year ago, so this has been a long-term prolbem. We have also added some material under Public Anthropology. It was removed immediately, as well. This one seems like it could be a bot problem, and we will try again.
While Maunus is trying to maintain material at an appropriate academic level, he might perhaps be using this critique to his own advantage rather than on academic merit alone. As a scholar, with a Ph.D, and over ten years of university teaching, I feel that I have assessed the academic merits of their entries and that they are suitable.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Not yet.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Anthropology, Public Anthropology}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
How do you think we can help?
Some guidelines on contributing Wikipedia could include the stats on how common it is for an entry to be removed. At this point, our stats on trying to enter material make it a frustrating task.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:184.2.174.194
Duplicate thread of above Marek Edelman article. Please do not upen duplicate threads for the same dispute Hasteur (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dispute overview
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
Error: The overview field is required. Please fill in the overview field with an outline of the dispute, with diffs if appropriate.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Not yet.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=User:184.2.174.194}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
(Comment from uninvolved editor) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 5, 2012 at 22:48 (UTC) because a third opinion has already been requested Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 22:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=College_Prowler}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Reverted edits, identified as vandalism. Left note on user's talk page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Electromagnetic radiation
Listing editor not interested in participating in Wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia's norms, further discussion is pointless. — TransporterMan (TALK) 00:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
The page contains a comment which is incorrect and not based on any citations or research. I updated it with references to peer-reviewed journals. The "editor" (who has no expertise in this field) removed my edits with his original, incorrect comments. The reason he gave for doing it is that my comments were based on original research.
Here is the full discussion:
Extended content
Biological effects of Electromagnetic radiation
Editor's comment:
Hi. I undid your changes to Electromagnetic radiation. The changes you made seem likely to be controversial. Wikipedia requires that information can be backed up by a citation to a "reliable source". It does not appear to me that the BioInitiative Report website qualifies as such, so I have reverted the article to its former state.--Srleffler (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
My response:
I have a PhD in biophysics from the University of Cambridge and have a fairly detailed understanding of the literature. Whoever wrote the original text had apparently not read a single one of the many hundreds of papers covering the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation.
You have no relevant background in this field, so it is not clear why you believe that you are in a position to judge research which you have not read and which is, in any case, far outside your field of expertise or training. I suggest that a little humility might be appropriate here.
In any case, since you have destroyed my previous comments I have re-written them in more detail: they now include references to specific research.
This time, please have the professional integrity to actually check these before passing judgment on them. You will notice that my analysis, unlike most of the rest of the page, is based on peer-reviewed research. In particular, the original comment that the health effects of EMF are somehow caused by "heating" - which I have removed - was a personal opinion which was not backed up by any citation and which was contradicted by the last twenty years of research in this field.
I will be more than happy to take this matter to arbitration if necessary. It is extraordinarily important for people to be aware of the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation. I strongly believe that Wikipedia - which I use constantly - should be a source of reliable, accurate information, rather than simply reflect the prejudices of a few editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopGarbageCollector (talk • contribs) 11:24, 6 April 2012
Editor removed my text with the following bizarre comment:
Please see Electromagnetic radiation and health where the material you are adding would belong rather than on the general article. I've removed your addition as it was supported by two primary research articles and a rather dated 1979 article, please carefully read WP:RS. Vsmith (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Effectively a piece of text backed up by a large number of cited peer-reviewed research papers has been removed by the "editor" and replaced by a comment which is incorrect and which shows a complete lack of understanding of the field. Quite why a seminal paper from 1979 in a respectable international journal would be inappropriate is entirely unclear.
It is abundantly clear that the editor is abusing his position to censor material which he doesn't like and has no respect for the credibility of Wikipedia.
Users involved
Who is involved in the dispute? Myself plus an "editor" called "Srleffler".
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Electromagnetic radiation}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I modified my first text to include more specific references.
Clerk Comment: Discussion is on User Talk:TopGarbageCollector
How do you think we can help?
Find an editor for this page who respects Wikipedia's principles, rather than somebody who is using his position as a little ego trip.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Thank you for coming and using DRN. First of all, as part of the board's rules, is not a place to deal with disputes purely about user conduct issues. However, we do accept disputes where conduct issues arise in the course of content disputes. Therefore, can we stop the accusations of bad faith and abuses of power? Secondly, is there a reason why the suggestion about the subpage Electromagnetic radiation and health is not an appropriate location for the content you would like to add? As the article is of significant importance to multiple projects taking a radical change for almost any reason is strongly discouraged. The only thing that bugs me, as an editor/reader, is that there's not a "Main Article ..." link to the subpage in the section.Hasteur (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a major mistake in this page: EMF does *not* affect organisms primarily through a heating effect. I tried to correct it and my corrections were vandalized by the editor. Unfortunately the editor has no background in this field and doesn't understand the research I have cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopGarbageCollector (talk • contribs) 16:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
TopGarbageCollector, I'm delighted to hear that you are familiar with the formal literature. You will therefore have no trouble directly citing proper review articles and/or major textbooks and reference works to support your material. Please see WP:MEDRS for more details, and keep in mind that we particularly appreciate it when people include a PubMed id number at the end of citations. PMID is a WP:Magic word on Wikipedia, so just type "Pmid" followed by the number, and it will automagically create a link, like this: PMID12345678.
Also, it is important that you cite recent works. Primary papers from 33 years ago are really not desirable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
There seem to have been a few misunderstandings here. TopGarbageCollector thinks that I reverted him twice, with two contradictory complaints about references. In fact, I reverted him only once. The second revert was by Vsmith. I think that TopGarbageCollector may also not understand that his text is saved in the edit history; he was frustrated at having to re-write his contribution from scratch.
TopGarbageCollector's change to the article was to add claims that low-frequency (nonionizing) EM radiation causes "profound physiological effects ... interferes with neuro-transmission, damages the integrity of the blood-brain barrier and affects cell growth," and "can lead to very significantly increased rates of cancer". This differs from my understanding, but I am admittedly not an expert in the field. I was concerned, though, because the claims sounded like they might be fringe science, so per Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:RELIABLESOURCES I removed them and left TopGarbageCollector a note indicating that better sources are required before this material can be included. The only references provided in TopGarbageCollector's original posting were two links to the homepage of a group called the "BioInitiative Report". It did not appear that this meets Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable source", and citations generally have to be to specific material not merely to a home page. I have no objection to TopGarbageCollector's text if references can be provided that demonstrate that this is a consensus view in the field (not merely that somebody somewhere has published this view.) If there is debate about the matter in the scientific press, both points of view will need to be discussed, rather than just one.
Subsequently, TopGarbageCollector posted a much better version of the material, which addressed the difference in opinion by saying that there has been a change in the views in the field in the last twenty years. He supported his edit with three references to journal articles. Vsmith reverted his edit, and recommended that he add the material to another article. I gather that he expressed concern on one of the talk pages about the references being to primary sources. I disagree with Vsmith about putting the new material only in Electromagnetic radiation and health. If TopGarbageCollector is correct and the consensus in the field has changed, the material in Electromagnetic radiation should be edited to reflect the fact that there has been a change, and to describe the new understanding of the issue.
I will leave it to editors more familiar with the material than I to evaluate whether the three new citations are reliable sources, and whether they are appropriate sources for the material. It seems to me, though, that while primary source citations are sufficient to say that there has been research in an issue and to say what the findings of that research are, they are not sufficient to confirm that a change in consensus in the field has taken place. For that, one requires citations to reliable secondary sources that ideally discuss the change in consensus, or at least clearly describe a consensus view that agrees with what TopGarbageCollector has written. --Srleffler (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Clerk's note: Since TGC is a newcomer, I think it might be useful here to note for his sake that the problem with scientific papers as direct sources for Wikipedia edits is that sources used for Wikipedia articles must be such that they can be understood, and understood correctly, by the average layperson. If their meaning would not be clear and unambiguous to an average layperson, then they're not, generally, acceptable sources because the purpose of citations in Wikipedia is to allow the average reader to confirm for himself or herself that what is said in Wikipedia is backed up by a reliable source. That is because the primary standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is, under the verifiability policy, verifiability, not truth. As you can see, that is quite unlike the way citations are used in academia (and law, for that matter) in which citations are given to prove the truth of what is being said in an assertion. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Supplement: If I might anticipate your reaction to what I just said, it may well be "Well, I'm and expert and even if a layman cannot understand the paper, I can interpret it for Wikipedia." Wikipedia's reaction is (and see the note I left on your talk page for more background about experts and Wikipedia), "Well, how do we know that you're an expert and even if you are an expert how do we know that you're in either the mainstream or the credible opposition and are not on the lunatic fringe?" Because that question cannot be answered without a great deal of difficulty and uncertainty, Wikipedia's no original research and primary source policies prohibit such interpretations, whether by laypeople or by experts. — TM 20:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Clerk Comment: I restored the previous posts and have tried to render TopGarbageCollector's responses as best I could. Please do not re-factor other editors comments to insert your reply between the context. It makes the conversation discussion difficult to follow. Hasteur (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
You don't seem very familiar with academic research. Links to books are not primary sources, and are subject to bias. If I am making a claim that "EMF radiation affects biological systems regardless of any heating effect" this can only legitimately be backed up by specific research which demonstrates this. In any case, much of this material is new, and is not in "major textbooks and reference works" - it typically takes many years before new research finds its way down to that level.
In my second edit I added three references to original peer-reviewed research. This edit was removed. Wny? It was replaced by an opinion which was not backed up by anything. Why?
Please see WP:MEDRS for more details, and keep in mind that we particularly appreciate it when people include a PubMed id number at the end of citations. PMID is a WP:Magic word on Wikipedia, so just type "Pmid" followed by the number, and it will automagically create a link, like this: PMID12345678. Also, it is important that you cite recent works. Primary papers from 33 years ago are really not desirable.
Again, this shows that you really don't have much of a background in science. Charles Darwin's works are constantly cited - because they are *primary sources*. They are more than 33 years old. Typically the first, seminal paper in a field is cited.
There seem to have been a few misunderstandings here. TopGarbageCollector thinks that I reverted him twice, with two contradictory complaints about references. In fact, I reverted him only once. The second revert was by Vsmith. I think that TopGarbageCollector may also not understand that his text is saved in the edit history; he was frustrated at having to re-write his contribution from scratch.
This is correct. But neither change made any rational sense.
Instead of antagonizing people by vandalizing their text and writing patronizing comments it might be better if the "editors" (if they can be called that) actually *looked at* the references before criticising them.
TopGarbageCollector's change to the article was to add claims that low-frequency (nonionizing) EM radiation causes "profound physiological effects ... interferes with neuro-transmission, damages the integrity of the blood-brain barrier and affects cell growth," and "can lead to very significantly increased rates of cancer". This differs from my understanding, but I am admittedly not an expert in the field.
...if you know nothing about something it's best to keep quiet.
I was concerned, though, because the claims sounded like they might be fringe science
If you had taken the trouble to *actually look at the reference* you would have discovered that it isn't.
Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:RELIABLESOURCES I removed them and left TopGarbageCollector a note indicating that better sources are required before this material can be included. The only references provided in TopGarbageCollector's original posting were two links to the homepage of a group called the "BioInitiative Report". It did not appear that this meets Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable source"
You are not in a position to make that judgement. Unlike you, I have actually *read* this report. It is 610 pages long and consists of summaries and reviews of many hundreds of peer-reviewed articles. If you are not capable of independently assessing the value of an edit you *should not be an editor*.
and citations generally have to be to specific material not merely to a home page.
You quite obviously didn't even open the document before pronouncing it as "unreliable".
I have no objection to TopGarbageCollector's text if references can be provided that demonstrate that this is a consensus view in the field (not merely that somebody somewhere has published this view.
This is childish. Science doesn't work by "consensus" like a Japanese board meeting. It works on the basis of peer-reviewed articles in credible scientific journals. Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia should not mention *any* research showing effects of EMF on cell biology until there is some kind of majority decision? Mr Wales himself says, quite clearly, that *controversial statements shoul be backed by citations". Your *controversial* statement that EMF has no effect on cell biology except through warming is backed up by nothing other than your own self-confidence.
If there is debate about the matter in the scientific press, both points of view will need to be discussed, rather than just one.
So why do you keep on censoring the one you disagree with?
Subsequently, TopGarbageCollector posted a much better version of the material, which addressed the difference in opinion by saying that there has been a change in the views in the field in the last twenty years. He supported his edit with three references to journal articles. Vsmith reverted his edit, and recommended that he add the material to another article. I gather that he expressed concern on one of the talk pages about the references being to primary sources. I disagree with Vsmith about putting the new material only in Electromagnetic radiation and health. If TopGarbageCollector is correct and the consensus in the field has changed, the material in Electromagnetic radiation should be edited to reflect the fact that there has been a change, and to describe the new understanding of the issue.
Can Mr Vsmith (who is a geologist, by the way) please *apologise* for his presumptuous deletion of my text and *reinstate it*.
I will leave it to editors more familiar with the material than I to evaluate whether the three new citations are reliable sources, and whether they are appropriate sources for the material.It seems to me, though, that while primary source citations are sufficient to say that there has been research in an issue and to say what the findings of that research are, they are not sufficient to confirm that a change in consensus in the field has taken place.
I realise that you don't have a research background. However, you seem to have a very naive understanding of the way science progresses.
For that, one requires citations to reliable secondary sources that ideally discuss the change in consensus, or at least clearly describe a consensus view that agrees with what TopGarbageCollector has written.
I am not wasting any more of my precious time dealing with the precious little Hitlers and Goebbels which inhabit Wikipedia. It has been clear to me for some time that the content of the site is so tainted it's valueless. After having dealt with a couple of the editors, I now understand why.
Clerk's note: Since TGC is a newcomer, I think it might be useful here to note for his sake that the problem with scientific papers as direct sources for Wikipedia edits is that sources used for Wikipedia articles must be such that they can be understood, and understood correctly, by the average layperson. If their meaning would not be clear and unambiguous to an average layperson, then they're not, generally, acceptable sources because the purpose of citations in Wikipedia is to allow the average reader to confirm for himself or herself that what is said in Wikipedia is backed up by a reliable source.
No wonder the articles on Wikipedia are riddled with mistakes. In any case, I included a link to a review which anybody - even a Wikipedia editor with a background in optics or geology - could understand. That was also rejected (although the 'editor' didn't even both to read any part of it before passing judgement) The truth is that the text is clamped down and that so-called editors are simply people with no expertise in the field who are paid a full-time salary to sit in front of their computers and stop any edits.
That is because the primary standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is, under the verifiability policy, verifiability, not truth.
In that case, why is the existing quote, which is backed up by **nothing** still there? If the only sources are original research because *there are no text books on this subject* then they are obviously better than NOTHING. Again, the truth is that the entire process of "editing" is a front.
As you can see, that is quite unlike the way citations are used in academia (and law, for that matter) in which citations are given to prove the truth of what is being said in an assertion.
This does at least explain why Wikipedia articles are so hopelessly out of date, riddled with errors, and dominated by the wishes of powerful industry lobby groups. Thank you for your insight.
Supplement: If I might anticipate your reaction to what I just said, it may well be "Well, I'm and expert and even if a layman cannot understand the paper, I can interpret it for Wikipedia."
Thank you for your patronizing little aside. No, I wasn't thinking that.
'Wikipedia's reaction is (and see the note I left on your talk page for more background about experts and Wikipedia), "Well, how do we know that you're an expert and even if you are an expert how do we know that you're in either the mainstream or the credible opposition and are not on the lunatic fringe?"
Ah. This gets to the heart of the matter. Wikipedia has nothing to do with 'truth', 'credibility' or 'evidence': it's more like a very old, out-of-date text book full of mistakes.
If it helps, here is a quote from a reliable secondary source: "Research reported so far, has revealed several problems, including not good reproducibility of experimental results, absence of linear relationship between cause and effect and absence of totally measured, proposed action mechanisms. The large and rapidly increasing number of recorded biological effects cannot be simply explained by temperature increase inside the exposed tissue, (thermal effects), but it looks that they can be explained if we take into account "non-thermal" mechanisms as well. However still some scientists and institutions do not accept the existence of non-thermal effects." --Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields By Peter Stavroulakis
Quite what makes this a 'reliable source' I don't know. Is it a book? Is it a review article? Is it Mr Stavroulakis' website? You have a very, very bizarre idea of what constitutes "reliable".
To TopGarbageCollector: Such secondary sources are readily available, and should be used to back-up any primary sources. However, be careful not to combine info to demonstrate a novel hypothesis, (see WP:Synthesis [Not accusing, just pointing this rule out].) It might also help to overview the WP:Manual of style. The encyclopedic style of writing used here is very different from the academic style thet you're probably used to.
I agree. It's more like that of a British tabloid newspaper.
Changing to a style very much like the above quote will help a lot in getting others to accept your edits.
Seriously: I have no intention of wasting any more time dealing with this nonsense. At least I now know why Wikipedia is such a joke. I will penalize any of my students who dares to *mention* Wikipedia in my presence!
I am concerned that TopGarbageCollector is affiliated with http://www.bioinitiative.org the group that the citations all focus on.
I am not, obviously.
But here's a thought: why don't you put your "concerns" as a reference and then include them in a Wikipedia article?
I am seeing that the sections of the survey paper there utilizes a number of peer reviewed sources and uses authors who are by all evidence professionals and expert and recognized in the field. However, I am not seeing sources or citations of this work to establish by peer review that it's felt within the field to be the current best understanding.
The report is 610 pages long. *This* is what is referenced. Scientists - as opposed to tabloid newspaper editors who work for Wikipedia - want *evidence* rather than the personal opinions of book writers.
It's unclear if this is a research group or a well-educated advocacy group. Citations of the work would be helpful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It would be quite clear if you *took the trouble to actually look at the report and see the backgrounds of the scientists who compiled it*
Revision as of 19:40, 7 April 2012 TopGarbageCollector
Clerk Notice: End of rendered comments.
First, I've just formatted a citation needed request for our new user on Electromagnetic radiation - Biological effects. The material I reverted earlier was supported by two primary research articles and by one article from the 1970s - rather dated it seems for "new" information. I suggested the content might better belong on the health effects article rather than the main article as that seems the preferred location. If added there, a brief note could be added in the main article. Vsmith (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
If it helps, here is a quote from a reliable secondary source: "Research reported so far, has revealed several problems, including not good reproducibility of experimental results, absence of linear relationship between cause and effect and absence of totally measured, proposed action mechanisms. The large and rapidly increasing number of recorded biological effects cannot be simply explained by temperature increase inside the exposed tissue, (thermal effects), but it looks that they can be explained if we take into account "non-thermal" mechanisms as well. However still some scientists and institutions do not accept the existence of non-thermal effects." --Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields By Peter Stavroulakis
To TopGarbageCollector: Such secondary sources are readily available, and should be used to back-up any primary sources. However, be careful not to combine info to demonstrate a novel hypothesis, (see WP:Synthesis [Not accusing, just pointing this rule out].) It might also help to overview the WP:Manual of style. The encyclopedic style of writing used here is very different from the academic style thet you're probably used to. Changing to a style very much like the above quote will help a lot in getting others to accept your edits. There are many editors, myself included, who would be happy to assist. Zaereth (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned that TopGarbageCollector is affiliated with http://www.bioinitiative.org the group that the citations all focus on. I am seeing that the sections of the survey paper there utilizes a number of peer reviewed sources and uses authors who are by all evidence professionals and expert and recognized in the field. However, I am not seeing sources or citations of this work to establish by peer review that it's felt within the field to be the current best understanding.
It's unclear if this is a research group or a well-educated advocacy group. Citations of the work would be helpful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 6, 2012 at 21:44 (UTC) because the listing editor has, per his talk page, apparently chosen to resign from editing. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Withdrawn by listing editor. — TransporterMan (TALK) 00:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
A new editor seems to be under a serious misapprehension about what Wikipedia is: they think it's for listing clubs, sports activities, names of houses, etc. in articles about middle schools. They don't seem to know what reliable sources are or what is and isn't encyclopedic. Perhaps one of you can have a look, and maybe explain to them why WP:SCHOOLCRUFT is a valuable essay.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Not yet.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Welsh Valley Middle School}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
See edit history, and user talk page.
How do you think we can help?
You can explain what Wikipedia is. I'm not getting a lot of help here, though there is one other user (User:Ducknish) who knows that this isn't right, but since they falsely accused me of vandalism they can't back down.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Clerk Comment: First thing. Both Editors need to step away from mass adding/deleting content from this page. This is non-negotiable. The next person who add/deletes large sections of content from this article is getting hauled up before the edit warring noticeboard and a request for page protection will be filed as both of you are edit warring. Hasteur (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, Hasteur, you're strict. I appreciate your involvement: you're a straight shooter and you know a thing or two about article content. Note that I haven't reverted their last addition of tit-bits. Note that what I deleted was not just unencyclopedic but also unverified. Finally, note that the editor saw fit to remove what I added: the only properly verified information in the article. Maybe Dicknush can give them a warning for vandalism. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he was talking to you as well. I did notice a lack of any content on the talk page of the article. This is usually the first step taken to resolve an edit conflict, not here. I'm wondering why that wasn't tried first? Dennis Brown (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]
Dennis, that's obvious, that he's talking to both of us. Talk page--because I'm not getting any younger and the instructions I'm looking at ("Encyclopedic content must be verifiable") are right there, in plain English. Note: I have used plenty edit summaries. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you are up on the guidelines, but he has been on Wikipedia less than 48 hours and he might not be. This is why I asked about the talk page of the article, which is a great place to explain guidelines, offer suggestions and avoid disputes. By "not getting younger", I'm guessing you mean that you were in a hurry, but I don't want to assume, because that would kind of sound bad in the full context of things. It looks like your first edit to the article had the summary here we go again. this list is not acceptable. look it up at WP:EL" which might be a little on the biting side for a new user. Coming here might be more convenient for you, but I'm not sure there is a content dispute as much as a new user that needs some assistance in understanding some of the guidelines you are saying he is violating. I see he has tried to communicate on his own page and talk page asking you about why you removed "so much data" and is still learning the system. Some of his comments were answered but to be honest, you are pretty rude to him. I added a Welcome template. He might be incorrect in understanding of the guidelines, but I don't think he is the problem here. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]
I have notified User:Ducknish that he has been mentioned here, as the IP hadn't. After reading more from this IP, this is starting to look boomerangish.[1] etc Dennis Brown (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, maybe you can get off your high horse and see what, if any, justification Ducknish had. He's already been lectured by an admin for rollback abuse, reverting my edits, and what he needs to do is apologize. But that's neither here nor there. Maybe I'm at DR because I'm looking for a kinder, more patient person than myself to help this other editor out? And maybe you, like Ducknish, should be less concerned with "registered account" than you seem to be. Oh, "here we go again": I've edited hundreds, maybe thousands of such school articles. SCHOOLCRUFT was written with poor schmucks like me in mind. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Ducknish was mistaken, that isn't the issue. You telling him to "fuck off", and having a talk page worth of other rude comments goes to the point I'm trying to make. Your rudeness to him, this new editor, and others is disturbing, to the point of being highly disruptive. You have been warned about this previously, but you don't seem to understand. No amount of good contributions changes that. I've already contacted the new editor, explained a couple things, and told him I will help him with any questions. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for linking me to this, Dennis. Unlike 66.168, I've attempted to some degree to explain the use of citations/sources to the new editor in question. If 66.168 was willing to cooperate I'm sure we could work together to help explain Wikipedia to Ricky, but I suppose at the point you start switching someone's name into Dicknush you've gotten a bit too temperamental to try achieving something productive. Ducknish (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I noticed your efforts. What is disturbing is that surely everyone knows that the editor in question is likely a young teenager trying to join and participate on Wikipedia, completely in good faith. I'm hoping Dicknush takes a little time and continues the effort. And 66.168.247.159, if you are going to bite every new user that is editing in good faith but unaware of our guidelines, then we are not better off for your efforts. It isn't about being on a high horse, it is about having the good sense and taste to be respectful of others, particularly when you disagree. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Exactly what I've been trying to say. The reason I reverted his mass blanking of the added content in the first place is that there are better ways to help Ricky improve the article than removing everything and acting like he's stupid for not knowing any better. Ducknish (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't lie. You reverted it saying "vandalism", not "let's help another editor out." Still can't get your story straight. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
That's nonsense: you'll find the same type of guidelines on the Schools project, at WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI. Look at that page and the names on top, and tell me if you want to ignore Kudpung and tedder. The only thing that's being ignored here is Wikipedia guidelines and common sense. But you know what, I see how it is. You all know that the new editor needs to be held by the hand because he has a username, though he hasn't written a word worth saving. The IP editor, who edited according to WP guidelines, who removed cruft and added verified content (which none of you were decent enough to even restore--whether that's out of laziness or something worse, I don't know), is wrong cause he's not nice enough.
I withdraw my case, before one of you gets it in their heads to report me for vandalism or some nonsense like that. Middle schoolers can go on to write school articles, and assorted registered editors can go on pissing on everything, including essays, guidelines, RS, and especially the "anyone can edit" part--that is, editors who for one reason or another don't wish to sign up or log in. Because if I had logged in, this entire discussion wouldn't have been necessary, because Ducknish wouldn't have had the balls to revert and cry "vandalism", and you wouldn't be fawning all over the party who doesn't know what he's doing here. I can't wait for the next batch of vandal warnings on "my" talk page. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
A user named "Creative" has deleted a biography of a living person, which is an abuse of administrator rights, since there are many biographies of various people on Wikipedia. Please, comment or send a feedback to mantas.siauciunas@smpf.lt.
The delete notice is the following (in Lithuanian): 21:16, 27 kovo 2012 Creative (Aptarimas
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Not yet.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Mantas Šiaučiūnas}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Yes
How do you think we can help?
To restore the article or restrict user's Creative rights.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Hello there, and thank you for posting here. This appears to be a complaint about lt:Mantas Šiaučiūnas. As such the engligh language Wikipedia does not have any impact on the Lithuanian wikipedia's policies/editing. Hearing no reasonable objections, this post will be closed down in 24 hours as it's not even something that we could resolve. Hasteur (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
List of wars involving Great Britain, List of wars involving Russia
Suggestion to open an RFC on this issue to evaluate if a new consensus has formed. Prior to that, the existing consensus abides. Hasteur (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
a discussion has been going on about the convenience of using simple list or tables in this 2 articles. i argue that simple lists are easier to read and edit, while MarcusBritish and Dpaajones favor the use of tables. MarcusBritish and i have been the most involved in the discussion [2], but we have reached a point where he doesn't want to argue anymore and to just leave the article the way it is, which is the state he favours.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Not yet. Yes, he has.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=List of wars involving Great Britain, List of wars involving Russia}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
i explained the benefits of lists over tables in this type of lists and because MarcusBritish insisted on having a table i suggested a middle point: a table with less text than the current table has, in order for it to be more easy to read like lists are but that it also would allow to have some aesthetic value and a bit more info as MarcusBritish wanted.
How do you think we can help?
mediate to allow us to reopen a discussion based in arguments and to reach a consensus. check the discussion page and you will see how arguments have been substituted by accusations of all kind. we need a third party without relation to this discussion to help us see the blind spots of the debate we were missing,
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
i explained the benefits of lists over tables in this type of lists and because MarcusBritish insisted on having a table i suggested a middle point: a table with less text than the current table has, in order for it to be more easy to read like lists are but that it also would allow to have some aesthetic value and a bit more info as MarcusBritish wanted.
This isn't only my opinion, other editors support it. So there is no dispute between me and Andres alone, but me, others and Andres solo. The discussion on the talk page clearly shows that he refuses to "get it" and accept that his edits were not acceptable.
How do you think we can help?**
mediate to allow us to reopen a discussion based in arguments and to reach a consensus. check the discussion page and you will see how arguments have been substituted by accusations of all kind. we need a third party without relation to this discussion to help us see the blind spots of the debate we were missing,
I am not going to waste any more of my time on this matter - I ask that any arbitrator read: Talk:List of wars involving Great Britain#List format .2F content. Furthermore, there are several more editors who agree with my stance on this matter, and none who agree with User Andres (this can be seen on the talk page of the British article, which I have just wikilinked). Thank you. David (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment
History lessens normally gives the start and end (death) date for both wars and people. The previous Great Britain webpage give the dates this allows the reader to see where wars overlap something that the articles on each war rarely say. Who was on each side and the out come are interesting. The information is a summary that permits the effect of the war to be determined. Andrew Swallow (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment
David Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, you have avoided discussion since the issue started and tough the original discussion was between me and you, MarcusBritish has been the only editor truly committed to discuss, until recently at least which is the reason i opened this request.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
those are your opinions, i'll refrain anymore comments from my part until an arbitrator takes the case.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Hi everyone, I'm a regular contributor at this noticeboard. This is a tricky situation to deal with, and the guidance given by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines doesn't seem to be conclusive here. MarcusBritish linked to the guideline WP:WHENTABLE above, and this is what it has to say on the subject: "Often a list is best left as a list. Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice." So to follow this guideline, we need to consider what data we want to show in the list - but that is the exact thing that this dispute is over. So this guideline doesn't look like it is going to be too much help here.
Next, we have Andres's argument that using tables makes the list look cluttered, and the other editors' argument that not using tables leaves out useful information. I think both of these arguments are valid, and I'm not aware of anything in policy that would guide us towards choosing one over the other. The only policy that applies here that I know of is that we must follow consensus. MarcusBritish made the insightful point, however, that we should consider how best to get the list to featured list status. If we look at the featured list criteria, we can see that criterion 5a is: "Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked." So it seems that using tables would be more likely to get the list to featured list status than not using them. Whether this criterion is fair or not is open to debate, but it seems to be a good reason to use tables in absence of other guidance.
Having said this, in the end it will be consensus that decides what ends up on the page. Contrary to Andres's comment above, we do not do arbitration on this noticeboard. We cannot make any binding decisions here, I'm afraid. If people's opinions don't change, then to get a clear decision on what to do it would be necessary to take this question to an RfC. However, given the number of editors in favour of using tables so far, I'm not sure that an RfC would have a great chance of being successful. Andres, it's up to you if you would like to try or not, but you should be prepared for the fact that things might not go the way you want them to. Because this is a collaborative project, there are times when you will not be able to get your way. It might be that this is just one of those situations where you have to let things go. Let me know if you have any questions about this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius♫ 13:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thanks for your commentary im glad to see you understood everyone's thoughts. i don't have a die hard opinion, since i started the discussion i came with an open mind an willing to compromise to reach a common understanding. i dropped my case for the conversion to list for the sake of consensus but the information contained is excessive and must be reduced in some parts to make it easier to read and write, right now it doesn't look like a big issue but the list today only covers a tiny percentage of the conflicts that involved Great Britain in the era (including many small colonial wars) that when they are added to the list will make it a torturous process for a reader/editor to check the list looking for a war. that being said, since i accept the table format and i believe that would make the consensus, we could end the discussion here and just continue normal editing, but i have the feeling MarcusBritish and i would still clash about the table's style and disposition, he has pretty strong ideas of what he wants. would you recommend to continue the discussion over the style of table or is it enough that we agree that tables are good for this 2 articles? and Marcus what do you say? --Andres rojas22 (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
you haven't been able to find a common ground or at least try. plus your management of policies and guidelines has been full of flaws: every policies or guideline you have cited supports my arguments.WP:WHENTABLE shatters your argument of the convenience of tables over lists:
If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice.
you're argument that "this article was never a list to begin with, except in name, the original creator created the article as a table" is weak, just because the article did not begin as a list it does not mean that it's table material. the main point is to: "consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice." not who was first the table or the list.
then you say:
To me this is no different to ENGVAR which says use the variation of English used by the creator, except where there are strong national tie
I'm puzzled by this statement, how does a guideline related to the naming of an article relates to the formatting of lists? you have repeatedly made some odd arguments using the policies and guidelines during the discussion.
and WP:TABLE also says:
Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table: Try not to use tables for putting a caption under a photograph, arranging a group of links, or other strictly visual features. It makes the article harder to edit for other Wikipedians. Also, when compared with tables, wikimarkup is more flexible, easier to use, and less esoteric when used for desktop publishing, page elements, and page orientation and positioning.
Blah, blah, blah... perhaps the only thing that is "shattered" or "weak" (weasel words of a persistent WP:BATTLEFIELD nature) is the fact that your initial, and continued argument fails to convince anyone that lists have any superior, logical, or "obvious" benefit over tables. And per your quote:
Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table
The data is tabular, and no it isn't a bloody "group of links", it's a 6-column chronological table with dates (not wikilinks), wars (wikilinked), the aggressors (auto-wikilinked), and outcome (not all wikilinked). So in essence, your point here is ill-conceived, and you don't seem to recognise the differences between "simple" and tabular. As for indicating that is may be harder for Wikipedians to edit, the quote is out of context, because that only applies to where tables have been misapplied to minimal lists. There is nothing "simple" about 6-cols worth of data, over a useless dates/wars menu.
if you're not capable of argumenting you're thoughts with policies and guidelines then just let go of the discussion, don't reply to my arguments that i have supported with 2 guidelines, of which the main points of the extracts are even highlighted in bold text with a disrespectful mock calling them ""Blah, blah, blah.... i take this as what it is, if you're not serious about discussing then let it go, don't make me waste my time writing arguments well based in policies for you to mock.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
you are no judge to declare the discussion has ceased just because you cant come with a decent argument to support the use of tables, every policy and guideline you have misused as supporting you're arguments i have clearly shown shown they support mine's and contradict what you say, the most blatant example being WP:WHENTABLE. of course you don't want to discuss, you cant prove your points! try at least to comprehend a guideline before just randomly throwing a link as "proof" of your opinions. mocking a user who is trying to have a debate is a clear breach of WP:CIV, as is offensive and provocative remarks as "Oh quit blowing your own bloody trumpet and spouting crap". arguments are sustained by policies and guidelines not by attacking the other party--Andres rojas22 (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Per FL criteria (the ultimate goal of any lists, and so best criteria we have): "Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities."
Combining start and end of wars removes sorting ability. If someone wanted to know what wars began in X-year they could, but they would lose ability to sort by and find wars that ended in X-year.
a table with a large number of lines between ever war is not easily navigable, and combining the dates of start and ending in one column would complicate sorting and finding conflicts by the year they ended because visually the only change would be 1900-1901 instead of 1900|1901. if you look a First Opium War you'll see how small is the space occupied by the main information which is the name of the conflict and date compared to the one occupied by the details of what concessions the chinese made, it should say british victory and/or treaty of nanjing. an article should include information that is needed b the user the reader to understand what he is reading, but not too much to the point where it becomes a visual distraction and hinders reading. an example if i listed "First Opium War" without anmore detail i would be forcing the reader to go to the page's article to see the date it was fought but b putting the dates of the war in this list the reader would have a better understanding of the conflict and if he wanted more details he could direct himself to the article's page. self containment and reliance on other articles for further information are both important, but a list even if in table form is just a list and not an article.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
What "large number of lines between every war"? Combining dates is not appropriate, as in some cases wars coincide with each other, so sorting:
1066-1070
1150-1250
1200-1201
1380-1400
would produce them in that same order for Start, but not work in order to produce:
1066-1070
1200-1201
1150-1250
1380-1400
for sorting by end, as proved here:
Years
1066-1070
1150-1250
1200-1201
1380-1400
Start
End
1066
1070
1150
1250
1200
1201
1380
1400
As is clear in this example, sorting both start/end is the better option, and what is required for ordering the data, not just for visual layout, which seems to be your concern. People want to be able to find things chronologically, in such tables. Basic lists offer none of these options, hence why they are easy to rule out for this purpose, where the article forms a chronology of events. Am speaking from experience, as I work with a lot of articles that use lists, tables and such, so I know how they function very clearly, and what is suitable format for them.
For all intents and purposes, you're using the word "article" wrong. Everything is an "article" per se, it's it's format that determines if the article is a list, prose based, table, etc. "Article" is an umbrella term, for everything, generally speaking.
i see, i agree on the separate columns for dates. but what about the description of the results, i pointed out the descriptions are too detailed and its information that the reader probably doesn't read at all, people get into this lists of wars to search for a conflict and then go to that conflict's article to get more information, they don't read the whole list so they don't make use of the detailed descriptions which obviously cannot compete with the coverage of a full article; and the editor will find hard to fill up what are a huge lists: covering 300 years of conflicts all over the world for the british and more than 700 years for russia! of which only a tiny fraction are listed now. what i propose if to give the results of wars as victor/defeat and/or naming the treat that ended the war, but to put more details to the description is to overcrowd the readers view with exclusive details and set a standard that other editors may not follow or achieve.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
i agree on putting the treaty instead of the details it involved except in major wars like napoleonic, etc. but "further discussion between other editors involved in the article, as I'm not willing to make the decision to refactor the Outcome column based on a one-on-one discussion." is not only impractical but it's a utopia that is never done in the wikipedia because if we asked for the opinions of editors who have previously edited the article we would never have the enciclopedia we have now, it would take forever. that's why the accepted form of acting is WP:BRD, we make changes and if someone disagrees we discuss but we don't have an obligation to previous editors no matter how much hours the invested because articles aren't property of editors. that's why everytime you're making an edit below the Save page button says "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."--Andres rojas22 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:BRD is not relevant in this case, as that applies when there has been considerable debate regarding an article, but also many edits that are not agreed to by various editors. I already performed BRD by boldly reverting your disputed list format back to the original table, and then discussing the unsuitability with you, for far longer than should be appropriate. If you were to revert back to the list that would be war editing not BRD, because multiple editors support the table structure against and are opposed to your changes, and removing text from the Outcome column is technically not "reverting" anything, anyway. However, you will find that because those multiple editors have made a consensus decision, and that the table is now determined to remain, any refactoring should be presented as a proposal prior to performing them, otherwise you would be seen as bending the rules of the consensus. So, yes it is practical, and no it wouldn't take forever (a hyperbolical expectation). It's the simple matter of fact that you opposed the use of a table in this article, and were highly involved in editing it, previously. As was I. Therefore, in order for bias to be avoided, either way, it is necessary to have your proposed changes presented and discussed amongst uninvolved editors, transparently. We do not make edits and then expect them to be discussed reactively in every case, we often discuss edits proactively, to avoid controversy, war edits, etc, in order to maintain article stability until the idea can be considered, and approved, a bit like a sandbox. That is consensus, also, and what is required here, regardless of how long it takes. Wiki does not work by deadlines, nor are editors supposed to enforce deadlines and personal timescales in order to push through their edits and not give people ample time to consider the effects. So I recommend you back down from being pushy, as it will not be taken lightly, no one likes to be rushed unnecessarily.
The wording below the Submit button is just general advice, per the Creative Commons licence Wiki operates under, and bears no relevance either. It simple means, WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour is not allowed here. We may not have an obligation to discuss each and every change with previous editors, but we have an obligation to respect consensus, and you have an obligation to recognise that the table format has been widely approved, 6:1 against you, and that you would be "safe" and sensible to discuss any ideas openly with the community, rather than acting of your own accord and disrespecting their majority, no matter how slight the edits may seem to you.
you are making a strange blend between two very different things (consensus and ownership), we have already agreed on keeping the format as a table which was the point of the discussion but now you and i are discussing details that are not part or the consensus. i have well proven the point in my last comment that polling to ask whether i'm allowed to make changes in the article is not supported by any policy and contrary to the interest of making an encyclopedia which is accomplished by editing and not by throwing fences and claiming ownership of certain articles. i'm not going to reach out and ask for the opinions of uninvolved editors because articles are not private property in which one need permission to trespass.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
after we conclude the discussion i will edit the article (taking into account the consensus, that is that the format remains a table) and if an editor expresses his objections to my changes then i will cordially accept a reversion and discuss the differences with him, as has always been the way to do things in wikipedia. that's the process of editing an article.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Then I have to formally warn you that the revert and objection will be made by me, reported to WP:ANEW and I shall insist there that the matter be discussed as a community consented change, first, if necessary a WP:RFC. As I have already stated, you do not represent a WP:NPOV, and your stake in the matter is based on a disposition than precedes this discussion. "I will cordially accept a reversion" is ownership being expressed, and prelude to another length round of exhaustive discussions, and unnecessary discussion. A discussion that precedes the matter would be more intelligent. I invite you to begin that discussion, now, on the talk page, and have some courtesy for once, and change your attitude towards not provoking a dispute, or I shall open the discussion.. and then you will have no choice but to wait. I refer you to WP:CONADMIN#Consensus-building pitfalls and errors which states: "Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." Take note of the bold, and that I have asked you, repeated, to seek an open consensus, and that you have refused, and dismissed the strength of such an action. See also, WP:NOTUNANIMITY, and WP:What is consensus?#Using the consensus-building process which states:
Freely exchange your interests and concerns. Also try to understand policies and guidelines that represent the interests of the Wikipedia community at large.
Offer a proposal that best meets everyone's interests and concerns, to the extent that they are reasonable.
Modify the proposal based on further feedback from the group.
If necessary, begin a new discussion and repeat the consensus building process with a wider range of editors.
this discussion would be so productive if you defended you're point with policies and not trying to make some kind of equation on what you think my behavior is. you still have to prove why i should have to consult with uninvolved editors about a discussion that only involves us. you already expressed you're agreement to reduce the content on the outcome column so we reached a consensus there, therefore i (or you) can edit the page to implement those changes. you think this is some kind of collegiate procedure when one has to call a board meeting for every edit to the article, well you're so wrong. as is normal practice i would edit the article as per the consensus we reached on the outcome column and that's the end of the story unless someone else has a different opinion and reverts me or simply the article just keep getting edited b x editor, and that's the cycle of article building.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
and apparently in you're opinion you can just change what we agreed to the article, the sortable date columns without consulting anyone more [5], but i need to consult to ever editor who has collaborated in this article if its ok to change the content of the outcome table. Double standards.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Is this just another further repeat of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, or are you always this arrogant?
"this discussion would be so productive if you defended you're point with policies" Done - multiple policies quoted above, to your none.
"you still have to prove why i should have to consult with uninvolved editors about a discussion that only involves us" Done - Wiki involves everyone, I refuse to discuss the matter wit you, because you are biased, and I am on the opposing side, thus neutral editors are needed.
"you already expressed you're agreement to reduce the content on the outcome column so we reached a consensus there" - false - I stated an opinion "I think in those cases where a war ended in a treaty it is not always necessary to detail each and every clause of the treaty..." followed by "This, however, would require further discussion between other editors involved in the article, as I'm not willing to make the decision to refactor the Outcome column based on a one-on-one discussion." - Do not draw false conclusions from my words. I requested a discussion. A consensus is a mutual agreement, and I cam to no agreement with you. Because:
I do not consider you a neutral enough editor to determine who wars are major, which text needs trimming, and which only require treaty names. I request a discussion, so that other editors, possibly with greater NPOV skills than yourself, can pitch in and help with the refactoring. I suspect you will butcher the Outcome column to suit your feelings about superfluous info,and that this entire discussion is a pretence, and I will not be baited into allowing myself to allow you to do so without appropriate consensus.
Once again, you and I have reached no consensus. I have not agreed anything specific, only a broad statement that the Outcome column might benefit from from trimming, but that you are not the best editor to do it, based on your prejudices expressed earlier.
You agreed with separate columns for dates, and they are sortable as part of the WP:TABLES and WP:FL standard. Your edits are subjective, and affect content, not layout so don't be petty, it's pointless and you're not being smart challenging minor edits, just tendentious.
you can see in the article discussion page that what was being discussed was if the list should be in table or in a stand alone list. i have agreed on this wp:drn to keep it as a table so that discussion is over, now there's a new discussion on how the table should look. so the stick you're talking about was dropped a long time ago this is another discussion.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Andres, not taking sides here, but saying "the stick was dropped a long time ago" doesn't mean that the issue isn't relevant. Remember, consensus can change, and it appears to have done so in this case. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Not done yet. I think we can still prevent this from escalating. See below. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Section break: Reassessment
Comment by Sleddog116: I regularly assist here on DRN, and I would like to comment based on my assessment of the situation. Okay, it seems that, unfortunately, discussion has broken down here a bit. I will admit that I am not entirely "up" on the issue at hand (I couldn't really get through all of the text above; it was very long and involved, and I don't have the time at the moment to fully review it), but I get the basic gist of it. I don't think we need administrative action yet, so I'd like for us to hang on here for a little while. Even if this doesn't work, I still think that the Mediation Cabal would be a much better avenue at this point than going to ANI - ANI discussions are rarely very pleasant for anyone involved, so it's better to avoid that if at all possible.
To Andres rojas22: As I mentioned above (before the section break), please remember that consensus can change. Just because something was "settled" a long time ago does not mean that it is not open for debate. On Wikipedia, nothing is ever set in stone. If the broader community is by and large rejecting your viewpoint, don't be a crusader. If you repeat the same argument, you get the same answers. In other words, "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten." If you want to make your case more effectively, bring new arguments, not the same ones.
To MarcusBritish: Please assume good faith. Just because Andres does not seem to be accepting consensus does not mean that he intends harm to the project. In the above discussion, you have turned the discussion on the editor rather than addressing the merits of the edits.
To everyone involved: Please, please, please keep your comments brief. All of the involved parties have given very long, detailed, complex responses that could be stated in much simpler terms. Remember to thread your comments appropriately. Doing otherwise (from anyone - I'm not accusing any particular editor of tendentious editing) is counterproductive. No one is going to be able to navigate the walls of text that are being posted in this discussion, and it gets stalled when that happens. If it is a large issue, take it point by point - don't try to hit every single thing at once. Nothing will get done that way.
Now, let's back up, stay cool, and try to resolve this without having to go to unpleasant means. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Marcus, I realize how frustrating it can be, but accusations of bad faith serve no practical purpose. I have already addressed Andres's conduct on this noticeboard, and assuming good faith means giving him a chance to respond in kind. Every editor, yourself included, has a POV of some kind. That is human nature. The point is, regardless of his point of view, I have seen by his edits that he does not intend harm towards the encyclopedia - edit warring is not vandalism. Also, AGF is a policy. Quoting directly from WP:AGF, "the assumption of good faith is dictated by Wikipedia policy". I am trying to prevent this from escalating - if you are truly trying to improve the encyclopedia, give this discussion a chance to restart without taking drastic measures. Give the other editors a chance to respond. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Sleddog, i'm gonna try to sum my answer, we started a discussion on April 25 as to whether to change the article's formatting from tabular to stand alone list and we agreed on keeping it a table but reducing excessive content. now instead of finishing up to discuss and implement the changes he agrees on the changes but come with the marvelous idea that they don't be implemented. that i must go to the talk page of the article and seek to discuss it with editors who have nothing to do with this discussion because he claims previous editors have some kind of rights to be consulted before i change their edits. putting an obstacle on the implementation of changes to which we had agreed "where a war ended in a treaty it is not always necessary to detail each and every clause of the treaty, even in summary form, a wikilink to the treaty should suffice, and possibly one or two main points per outcome, nothing trivial, may be required in some but not all cases where the result, as part of the outcome, is of great importance to British or even world history, e.g. Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWII, etc." ([6]. -Andres rojas22 (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Question to All Participants I've been marginally been keeping an eye on this thread. I would like to ask, is there some sort of resolution we can implement? A widely advertised RfC curated by WP:MILHIST seems to be the only way to determine what the consensus currently is. As such I recomend the following points
Prior to the conducting of a widely advertised and well run RfC regarding this case, the status quo ante to the dispute is read to be the consensus of the community.
Neither side in the dispute is to take confrontational or bating actions in regard to the dispute except to restore status quo ante
An experienced editor (or administrator) that is neutral in the dispute will evaluate the discussion points presented and come to a rendering of the community's consensus
This consensus is then to be implemented on the disputed pages
This consensus is to be in force for a period of no less than 3 months, at which time the consensus may be re-evaluated if there is strong evidence to display that the consensus has changed.
Short of this numbered list, the only way to get this resolved appears to be WP:MEDCAB,WP:MEDCOM, or the nuclear option WP:ARBCOM. Know that if ArbCom is chosen there will be no winners, only people who loose a little bit less. Hasteur (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
As the conversation has stagnated, this thread may be closed in 72 hours from 19:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC) with the above proposed RfC for generating the consensus unless strenous objections to this closure method occur.Hasteur (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Amber Rose
Closed as resolved, see my comment of 17:27, 9 April 2012, in discussion, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
Amber Rose is in a Youtube video stating that she was a stripper. I've been told by a senior wikipedia editor here: Because we don't allow youtube videos as reliable sources, it would only be of use if it was Lola herself saying "I was a stripper".--Jac16888 Talk 00:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I would also like to point that my edits are being targeted because I put in a RFA as well.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Yes I've had multiple discussions with Jac16888, Bwilkins, and Youreallycan. After I received no further responses from anyone I decided to add the information again and some disgruntle editors were able campaign for me the get temporarily banned because of edit. Again I believe Bwilkins is highly biased when it comes to my edits because I applied to be an administrator (see his talk page regarding my RFA).--Ron John (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I believe his feelings are getting the best of him and his duties as a wikipedia administrator.
How do you think we can help?
Tell us if an youtube video of someone saying they were stripper be used as a source on wikipedia.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The text added by the YouTube uploader suggests that the subject has talked about the same thing in other interviews. Why not try to hunt down one of those interviews? Formerip (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Just a minor point, Ron John: you were blocked for edit warring. Your failed RFA has nothing to do with it and bringing it up serves no purposes, but to cast aspersions on the admin who blocked you. You were edit warring and violating WP:BLP, so the block was totally correct. SalvioLet's talk about it! 11:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
...and that's more usable. I don't think there's ever been doubt that she was, it's the sourcing (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure how I became "involved" - I reverted a BLP issue, provided a necessary block for edit-warring, both otherwise have no involvement in the article. In terms of my "feelings"...I have none related to the editor, nor the article. My only previous interactions with the editor were to try and guide him gently towards the norms/policies of Wikipedia, and trying to stop him from embarrassing himself with an RFA that was massively doomed from the start. I then was one of the proponents of keeping it open, because the editor wanted it open. Not sure if I need to make additional comments because I don't give 2 shits about the article; only about maintaining the policies surrounding it (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a sour-grapes editor with a grudge just throwing Bwilkins name in as part of general discontent rather than BWilkins' actually being involved. Toddst1 (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. If you will search the archives at the reliable sources noticeboard you will find that there is general agreement that YouTube is not a reliable source and is questionable as even an exterior link. In that light, and in light of the fact that there are other more clearly reliable sources for the information, I'm going to close this thread in twenty-four hours. The other matters raised by the listing editor are conduct matters which are not appropriate for this noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 9, 2012 at 17:27 (UTC) because of the reasons set out in my last comment, above. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
It all began with a request for Passive smoking to be moved to Second-hand smoke (see: Talk:Passive_smoking#Move.3F). I was one of those who opposed. I then discovered that since December 2011 User:Hypocaustic had been systematically changing "passive smoking" to "second-hand smoke", and "smoking ban" to "smoke-free regulations" on many articles (see e.g.: [7], [8]) — he subsequently used the more frequent occurrence of "his" term as a justification in the move request, an issue I raised at the time. The move request was declined.
Things went downhill on 26 February, when the user moved Smoking ban and many related pages unilaterally, and move-warred with two editors when they attempted to revert him (see: user's move log). Eventually he gave up and disappeared for a month after an experienced editor criticized his edits to Smoking ban, which is a semi-protected article (see: [9]).
Reappeared last week, and has tried to copy/paste articles from one page to another, causing attribution problems (see: content and edit histories of Passive smoking vs Second-hand smoke, and Smoking ban in England vs Smoke-free law (England)). I reverted his most recent changes but he reverted me back, calling my edits "vandalism" (see: edit summaries at [10], [11]). I then approached the admin who had closed the original move request for advice, and he directed me here.
Entirely separately, the user has changed several articles from US to UK English, and then reverted editors who try to change it back. I have warned him about this, and he seems to know the rules (see: this diff (where he warns another user about changing from one style to another), but still makes the changes regardless. See e.g.:
(last three editors are only marginally involved, compared to Hypocaustic and myself)
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Passive smoking, Smoking ban in England}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Explain to User:Hypocaustic what consensus is, why copy/paste moves are wrong, why WP:RETAIN exists; restore content of pages at Passive smoking and Smoking ban in England per the GFDL requirements.
Passive smoking, Smoking ban in England discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Thanks for bringing this to the attention of a wider group of Wikipedians. There seem to be two or three different issues or concerns here, all of which seem to have presented a risk of unhelpful disputes (or even 'edit wars') and some of which may perhaps offer some wider learning for phrasing of WP guidance. I'll do my best to list these and explain the situation, as far as I understand it.
1. Smoke-free laws / smoking ban. Some time back, I initially made what I have to concur was an error in how I interpreted the guidance to 'be bold', by carrying out some swift move-and-redirect edits on grounds which appeared, at least from a technical standpoint, to be uncontroversial. We got into what looked perilously near to an edit war, and I did indeed pull back from involvement for a while to let tempers cool. What the sometimes heated debate around this suggested was that some contributors are motivated to 'defend' explicit references to bans because this makes it easier to argue against such measures (essentially bans are presented as illiberal a politically 'bad thing'); I don't know if that's part of this specific complainant's concern so this is an observation rather than accusation, but it does seem to have clouded the conversation a little further. What I have endeavoured to do more recently is gradually improve the clarity with which Wikipedia defines, and distinguishes, both terms - rather than getting into an either/or dichotomy, or sudden 'big bang' edits. I'm sure I haven't done that absolutely perfectly and would very much welcome input from fellow contributors to strengthen the content, but I do indeed think that knee-jerk reverts of careful and considered edits are rather close to vandalism, much as I regret having to level such a charge.
2. Second-hand smoke / passive smoking. I should probably emphasise at this point that tobacco is not the only subject in the world I'm interested in! However, the picture here is rather simpler. I initially proposed a straightforward move of the old 'passive smoking' article to 'second-hand smoke'; the discussion around this revealed a robust intellectual case for doing that, but there were not a sufficient number of respondents to achieve much of a quorum and no consensus to move was reached. I nevertheless observed the group conclusion, refrained from imposing a simple move/redirect and returned to this particular topic subsequently when it became clear that the two terms, although obviously related, were importantly distinct and different in their meanings. So, as things now stand, we now have a page both for the older term, passive smoking and the currently recognised term, second-hand smoke, with some explanatory text on both pages (and mutual links) to make the relationship clear. I honestly think that, for now, this is the most elegant solution and probably the one most useful for readers. However, I sense that part of the objection raised here may be that some text explaining the scientific and regulatory detail appears on just one of those pages, thus causing the complainant to be concerned that a move had been made 'under the radar'; that certainly wasn't the intention, but thoughts on how to positively respond would be welcome. It seems a less than ideal use of the bandwidth to simply reproduce text on both pages, but there is perhaps scope to produce more tailored content so as to ensure that both terms/pages have a fuller 'body' if this is desired.
3. Varieties of English. Like many contributors and editors, I think, I try to sustain and improve the consistency and accuracy of spelling, phraseology and punctuation as I go along. Because I was trained in a specific variety of English, I'm sure it's highly likely that I have, on occasion, erred in changing a spelling which was arguably not actually incorrect, but simply in a different tradition. If that's happened, it has been unintentional and I'm grateful for support in addressing it. On the one clear occasion I can recall where the complainant here did challenge me along these lines, I followed the 'ENGVAR' guidance and identified alternative phraseology which was less subject to transatlantic disagreements in the first place, although that seems not to have satisfied him or her unfortunately. Does this guidance perhaps need to be clearer? Where there is felt to be an issue about retaining the variety of English used by the very first contributor, could or should there be a more visible way of indicating which this is? Thoughts welcome.
I've done what I can to enhance the resources which the encyclopaedia offers on the first two points, and would like to propose a moratorium to allow time for other Wikipedians to assist and/or comment. I'm not sure if there's already a convention on this, but it would certainly seem sensible for Cross Porpoises and I to be 'hands off' as regards those specific pages for a week or two if both agree. Thanks, in advance, for your help.Hypocaustic (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment
My involvement in this dispute involved Hypocaustic's edits to Smoking ban. Hypocaustic has an issue with some of the terminology used, and technically speaking he may have a point. However, my position is that, per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia should prefer the more commonly known term, the one most likely to be understood by readers. The subtle shade of difference between "smoking ban" and "smoke free law" is not a reason to change everything and the article itself makes what it means clear.
I think all involved in discussions regarding what Hypocaustic wished were ready to hear what he had to say. Discussion was cordial, despite Hypocaustic repeating his changes in apparent attempts to force the issue. At the end I thought that Hypocaustic had amicably agreed to accept consensus in February and leave the article as was.
Discussions have not been helped by his non-neutral stance on the issue and his belief that there is some kind of Wikipedia conspiracy by tobacco supporters to favour "ban", because it helps them to portray the measures as oppressive. I can't see any evidence of this and his repeated reference to it sails very close to violating WP:AGF. "Ban" is used because that is what sources most commonly use, it's as simple as that.
I believe Hypocaustic's latest edits to be disingenuous. He knows what he wishes to do is against prior consensus, so coming back for another go a couple of months later in the guise of being bold is at best misguided, at worse mischievous. If he thinks he has a new compromise that could satisfy everyone, then he could raise it on a talk page first. As it is, I don't think he is offering anything new, just another approach to the same changes.
I also think his work on Passive smoking and Second hand smoke is a textbook example of POV forking and an attempt to bypass consensus in the previous move discussion. Wikipedia does not need two articles on these closely related topics simply because one editor doesn't like the name. Any hair-splitting necessary between "Passive smoking" and "second hand smoke" can be handled within the one article.
I don't think his changes in spelling are any big deal, and am happy to accept he did not set out to do these deliberately. --Escape Orbit(Talk) 21:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Section break
Clerk's Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) Other than edit warring and some discussion on the article talk page and user talk page, there's been no attempt to resolve the dispute. As a prerequisite to the dispute resolution noticeboard, there has to be talk page discussion. I think it was inappropriate to assume bad faith of Hypocaustic by constituting his/her edits as "vandalism". I think the parties can work from the merge RfC and see what kind of consensus there is and work from there. If there's anything else I can help with, just let me know. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Clerk comment This looks like a behavioural problem, on the part of user:HypocausticCurb Chain (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to Escape Orbit for responding pragmatically. I do understand your reservations, but I'm happy to reassure you that I do take as neutral stance as is humanly possible on such an inherently contentious subject - a fairly knowledgeable commentator perhaps, but not an advocate (Wikipedia isn't really the place for that). As for whether I've been mischievous or even exhibit a 'behavioural problem', that looks regrettably like mud-slinging but let's assume that the contributors above didn't mean those comments to come across quite that way. I'm certainly not suggesting a 'conspiracy', of course; it was apparent from some aspects of a prior discussion that there were indeed contributors with a point of view to push, and if so this surely didn't help the situation, but I've already said that I have no specific reason to believe that this is at the heart of Cross Porpoise's individual concerns. Acting against consensus is a charge that I would be concerned to receive if there was a good case for it, but I'm reasonably confident I've taken reasonable steps not to - including respecting group decisions not to execute a straight switch-and-redirect and endeavouring to generate a discussion about proposals for recent changes beforehand on the appropriate talk pages. As for hair-splitting, well we may have to agree to differ there - if there didn't appear a genuine reason for covering more than one term in the encyclopaedia, I wouldn't have done it, but the solution to finding what works best here seems to lie in getting into some specific discussion about terminology rather than falling into an adversarial scenario. So, to echo the wise words of Whenaxis above - how about we mutually cease assuming bad faith and see how we can collaborate to improve the quality of the content?Hypocaustic (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Is everyone okay with trying to collaborate and work from the merge RfC? If so, we can close this thread and if necessary, this dispute can be returned to this noticeboard should the dispute not be resolved. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
How is it a merge request, and not a page move? Before Hypocaustic copy/pasted the content, Passive smoking looked like this. Second-hand smoke looks like this. Same images, same section headings, same references and citations. Is it really that easy for an editor with an agenda to run around consensus after being declined at Wikipedia:Requested moves? I see lots opposing or criticizing Hypocaustic both here and on talk pages, and no-one supporting him. Cross porpoises (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
On Second-hand smoke, He has edit warred to remove the merge request template with two different users (see: [12] and [13]), even calling it "vandalism." Hypocaustic acts all nicey-nicey and verbose on talk pages and this noticeboard, but its a different story if youre trying to edit with him. Have you looked at the page history of Smoking ban from Feb 26th-28th? [14]. Thats been his typical behaviour while he accuses other people of "POV-pushing" and "bad faith." Cross porpoises (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
'Still happy to collaborate, Whenaxis, and open to ideas about how best to do that; I am not entirely clear what 'working from the merge RfC' entails, but if you have experience of resolving disagreements positively in this way it would be good to hear more. It does also sound as if it would be sensible to get some additional support with this if there is a way to do so, as the above comments suggest that at least one fellow contributor has become sufficiently exasperated that working with me constructively may be difficult at the moment (I don't criticise him or her for that, as it's evident that he or she is committed to improving Wikipedia even if we currently disagree about the means). I am mindful of Escape Orbit's concerns around 'POV-forking', and although I am confident that is not what's going on here I do agree that real care is required to avoid fuelling such suspicions; to my mind, engaging with the detail of the issue to build a meaningful consensus on the substance of the issue, rather than simplistic yes/no polling, is the most promising way forward. It also looks, to me, as if Cross Porpoises has an important point about ensuring that the page covering older term, 'passive smoking' does not become an unacceptably short article as the page covering the current term, 'second-hand smoke' develops; unless we simply duplicate some content there (which is presumably not regarded as best practice), we'll need to create or edit some new material to ensure that these different but connected terms are properly explained - I am happy to be involved in doing so but have held off from making any further edits to these pages while there is a discussion on this noticeboard.Hypocaustic (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I realise that Hypocaustic has faulted before, but now that this user is willing to collaborate, you should be open to discussing with Hypocaustic rather than blaming them for their actions. I think the best way to start off with resolving this dispute is to refrain from editing the two articles in question until the dispute is fully resolved, as well as, ceasing all assumptions of bad faith. From there, we can use this RfC form February and decipher the issues at hand and find a compromise through citing Wikipedia policies and using references to back up your opinion. If the parties could provide statements on their opinion below, that would be great. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't come to this noticeboard to get permission to start a discussion. I'm a grown woman, I can do that all by myself.
You say Hypocaustic has faulted before, but now is willing to collaborate. Let him demonstrate this by undoing those past faults and restoring Passive smoking and Smoking ban in England to the way they were. Otherwise it will look to me like he does not see his edits as faults which need fixing. Cross porpoises (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Hypocaustic, you should undo the faults of your past to show that you are willing to collaborate. Making frequent or mass changes without consensus is strictly prohibited as the community finds that disruptive and counterproductive. Cross porpoises, have you tried reporting this user to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the actions which could reasonably be described with the benefit of hindsight as faults (i.e. the initial page moves without consensus) have already been undone, Whenaxis. What we're left with look like some genuine differences of 'editorial' opinion. Litigious language is unlikely to be helpful; there are plenty of WP policies suggesting a different approach too, but generating added conflict here is evidently not going to get us far. The offer of collaboration was real, but I respectfully decline to participate further in a discussion which appears at risk of intensifying, rather than resolving, a dispute. Realistically, we are left with two broad options: to return to detailed discussion of improvements to articles on related talk pages and keep building and developing consensus, or for those concerned to just walk away and get on with something else. That's a matter for individuals to decide upon for themselves, so either way I suggest we close this discussion here and move on. Thanks to all who have contributed for your time and input - and I really do mean all.Hypocaustic (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 10, 2012 at 20:47 (UTC) because party requests closure Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hydranencephaly
No talkpage discussion as required by this noticeboard. Will drop a note on listing editor's talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The problem of link deletion and blanking have been documented on talk page of the article for some time. Without a user talk page not sure how to resolve this other than to continue editing article and restoring deleted link.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Not yet.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Hydranencephaly}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Do not know how to contact other user via Wikipedia. No talk page. Not sure what to do.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
You can create her page. Red links mean that the page has not yet been created, but I am not sure about the whole auto confirmed thing, but I think you can create pages.Curb Chain (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate)
Keep working on the draft and collaborate with the others to improve the cluttered list! If there are any issues, please try a RfC. Closing as resolved and 24-hours' notice provided. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 00:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate) is/was a very large article with a very large and cumbersome notes column. User talk:This, that and the other (unrelated to this conflict) suggested on the talk page that the notes section be removed all otgether because all the information there is in each general's respective article. I (User: Brightgalrs) did just that, and went through removing the notes section among other changes. User: IcarusPhoenix undid my revision and posted a message on my wall. This conversation followed.
I feel as though IcarusPhoenix is nonchalantly undoing my edit without the intention of making the article better at all.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate)}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 20:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate) discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
"Imagine if you will that you had done the same amount of work that you just did on these articles, but came back and did that same work several dozen times... and then someone came out of nowhere and, without discussing it with anyone else, eliminated massive swaths of it." (Posted here by IcarusPhoenix)
Icarus, do you feel that my revisions are wrong simply because you put effort into what I deleted? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 20:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) I think the consensus is clear that the "Notes" section should be removed with 3 editors in favor of it as opposed to 1 editor who does not want it removed. I've requested for page protection so this dispute can be resolved. Don't edit war, if the edit warring gets really bad, report it to the edit warring noticeboard and it may lead to temporary blocks. IcarusPhoenix, is there a reason why you would like to have the "Notes" section maintained? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
First things first, I did not write the above comment on this page; it was my response to User:Brightgalrs|Brightgalrs]] on the user's talk page, and it was Brightgalrs who chose to move it here without the relevant context, not I; it was a direct reply to Brightgalrs, and not part of the dispute process. That being said, here is my position on the matter:
I think that Brightgalrs decision to apply for dispute resolution is premature, as the user has thus far failed to understand the nature of the dispute, nor bothered to discuss his/her edits with a single one of the more than half-a-dozen editors who have been working for years to craft this article and (among other things and with consensus) address the exact issue that Brightgalrs thought they were addressing. The dispute is not entirely over the nature of the edits, but in part over Brightgalrs' decision to make those edits without bothering to once discuss it with any other editors involved in the page, most notably Donner60, who was already condensing (not callously deleting) the notes section to bring it in line with its sister article List of American Civil War Generals (Union) (which Brightgalrs also made some undiscussed massive - though less-invasive - changes to) and in accordance with a long consensus-building discussion between several editors; if Brightgalrs had so much as bothered to look here (which would have involved no more effort than scrolling slightly up the talk page) or looked at the recent edit history, he/she(?) could have avoided this entire process, to say nothing of creating a situation that would lead to a copy-protection that will delay Donner60's work. While Brightgalrs may feel that my reversion of his/her edits were "nonchalant" and lacking regard for the work done, my position is that even making those edits without bothering to look at the article history or the work that others had already agreed to was an act that actually damaged the integrity and accuracy of the article. This is a discussion that has been held civilly by several editors from the articles very inception, and not one of us had the lack of common courtesy displayed by Brightgalrs to simply go and make massive wholesale changes to an article with no regard for work already in progress. I strongly recommend that people read Donner60's explanation on the talk page I linked above and look at the article history to see why we object to Brightgalrs' unilateral decision to change the very nature of the article.
Also, at the risk of sounding nitpicky here, Brightgalrs didn't quite follow procedure in informing of this dispute, and has yet to say anything to any of the other editors of either page; the only reason this dispute is being had between Brightgalrs and myself rather than Brightgalrs and myself, Donner60, BusterD, Searcher 1990, and several others is simply that I was the first one to notice the situation; I have had to take it on myself to draw their attention to this matter. Despite the rapidity of Brightgalrs' actions, Hlj has already been kind enough to respond to my request for an opinion (just as he or I or several others would have done for Brightgalrs had he/she bothered to ask), and his reply can be read on my talk page. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree with Marcus' assertion of canvassing; asking the opinions of other involved and interested editors (which Brightgalrs failed to do) - notes I had begun to write before the dispute resolution process began - does not constitute canvassing. These are interested parties in the dispute, and I very clearly asked their opinion; that I cut-and-pasted the same question to all of them for the sake of expediency in the face of an issue that is moving surprisingly quickly is hardly surprising; that the out-of-context portion of my statement that Marcus quoted above was border-line inflammatory, however, I do not really dispute; this was, as I said before this process had started, and after Brightgalrs' out-of-hand rejection of any opinion other than his/her own, I was unsurprisingly irritable. While in retrospect I am not terribly fond of the tone I adopted in those messages, being dismissed by someone who refused to participate in preexisting discussions before making wholesale changes was, I think you'll agree, understandably irksome.
Clerk's Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) Icarus, thank you for your reply. MarcusBritish, I don't think those edits constitute canvassing as they are merely notes to possibly interested parties to participate in discussion. However, I do agree that ownership of articles is not acceptable and there should be openness to other editors wanting to improve the page. Icarus and Brightgalrs, I think there has been a lack of communication (or miscommunication) about the "Notes" section. I do agree that you should reach a consensus on what to do with the "Notes" section before merely just completing an edit. If necessary, you can request for comments on what sort of measure should be done (i.e., complete removal of the "Notes" section or refactoring of the "Notes" section). As I said earlier, if the edit warring continues after the full page protection expires, please report it to the edit warring noticeboard. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 22:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Whenaxis, thank you for your statement. Marcus, I went to three editors whose activity level on this group of articles showed the sort of dedication that Brightgalrs has demonstrated and whose hard work was most at-risk by edits made without consensus. Your assumption of bad faith from me is no different than my assumption of the same in Brightgalrs' edits, and is unbecoming to someone who theoretically should be a neutral party.
My suggestion is as follows: That Brightgalrs and myself do our best to leave this discussion aside entirely for a day or so, until other interested parties (notably Donner60, whose work constituted the overwhelming majority of what Brightgalrs eliminated) have had time to look at the matter. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
MarcusBritish: The canvassing guideline clearly states under the appropriate notification heading at the last point, "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them." which is precisely what IcarusPhoenix did. It was inappropriate of you to assume bad faith on IcarusPhoenix's part, the first step when you suspect canvassing, is to politely talk with the user to stop posting notices.
IcarusPhoenix: That would be a good idea. Step away from the dispute for a little while and once you've calmed down, return to discussing. If there are any further issues, feel free to bring this dispute back to the dispute resolution noticeboard or refer it to the edit warring noticeboard in the event of disruptive edit warring. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 22:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
This dispute is ridiculous. IcarusPhoenix should have quickly seen that consensus was against the unwieldy 300 kb notes section, and that its presence was detrimental to article access in terms of focus and with respect to those with poor internet connections. (Even without the 300 kb the article is a mass of server calls with all of those images.) IcarusPhoenix dug his heels in and tried a number of tactics to retain the mass of peripheral text. He should acknowledge that none of the tactics worked and that consensus has shifted firmly for removal.
The text in question is available in article history; it does not need to be kept in the 'live' article for any sort of slow, careful removal piece by piece. It should be removed post-haste. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Binksternet: The thing is, I agree that the notes section is unwieldy. In fact, I was the first one to say so, right here, which is why User:Donner60 was in the process of paring it down when this dispute cropped up. What I do not agree with is its complete absence; indeed, my opinion - stated many times before and generally lost in the quagmire of Marcus' personal attacks - is that the notes column should be brought in line with the much-more limited and relevant style set in List of American Civil War Generals (Union) (which is exactly what was being done, though still not to the extent that I for one felt it should), and that the "Date, Place of Birth", "Date, Place of Death", and especially-irrelevant "College" columns should all be eliminated. The dispute exists primarily because a user decided to do a mass edit without seeing if they were stepping on the toes of another user (namely Donner60) who was already solving the size problem in a manner that Brightgalrs' edit ruins the progress of. Edits of such scope are usually kept in the sandbox for this very reason, and one only needs to look at the articles recent history to see that, never mind multiple discussions that were had prior to this incident. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
My recommendation (unsurprisingly) is somewhat different - though, unlike Marcus, that may be because I'm more interested in an equitable solution to paring down the article than I am in the personal virtues of others (a tendency Marcus is displaying not only here, but in a companion discussion here in which he has spent the entire discussion cursing more creatively and has made nationally-bigoted comments, and above in his equally vitriolic and unconstructive personal attacks against User:Andres rojas22). My recommendation is that we immediately eliminated the unnecessary birth/death/college columns (which, especially in the case of the latter, we can all agree are superfluous to the topic of the article) and continue to pare down the notes section just as User:Donner60 has done for sections A-F - though, as I stated earlier, I am now and always have been strongly in favor of being far more aggressive about these eliminations that Donner60 has been. Again, I suggest looking to the sister article for a demonstration of concise and strictly-structured notations. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Section break
IcarusPhoenix, unfortunately, the consensus is against your recommendation of refactoring the "Notes" section. Majority of the editors want it completely absent from the article. And MarcusBritish has brought some good points about how the note that you left on the editors' talk pages were not neutral, in the future, I ask you to avoid such circumstances as it may appear as canvassing even if you don't mean it to be. In addition, just pushing the blame on other people as to the failure of the resolution of the dispute is not the way to resolve the dispute. Perhaps, Donner60 and IcarusPhoenix can propose their refactored version of the notes later on the talk page, while we maintain the article without the notes because it is quite heavy on the article and too long for the time being. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
That seems fair for now, though I would point out that the consensus here doesn't fully seem to match consensus elsewhere, nor do I feel that enough input has been made overall, particularly to my most recent suggestion, which no one has yet had time to reply to; I would request leaving this resolution thread open for a few more days, since at present it's mostly filled with Marcus' ever-more vulgar attacks and my ill-advised desire to defend myself from those attacks, rather than discussions of the dispute in question or the relative merits of specific proposals (indeed, yourself and User:Binksternet seem to be the only ones thus far able to remain faithful to the discussion's core topic). IcarusPhoenix (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: I have rapidly sandboxed the "A" section of the list to demonstrate my proposal here (note: it's not perfect, but just a rapid demonstration... there are a couple of factual tidbits I'm uncertain about). The first version is it's current appearance after Donner60 eliminated the full-bio notes still visible in letters after "F"; the second is my proposal for revision, maintaining the notes column with only relevant information and eliminating three intervening columns. Also, I'm not really satisfied with the ranks column; I am of the opinion that nomination dates are unnecessary and that only confirmation dates (in parentheses) are necessary to indicate seniority. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Can the reader not find the information in the "Notes" column from the article page on the person? Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Much of it, yes - or, at least, they certainly should be able to, though many of those articles - particularly for Confederate generals - are not themselves quite up to standards yet. That actually was my exact argument against having so much extraneous information in the notes to begin with, and I think it is also the argument in favor of removing the birth/death/college columns. Things like units, non-notable elected offices, non-military colleges, and deaths unrelated to the war just aren't relevant to the article's topic and belong confined to the individual articles; however, I do think there is an argument to be made for specific and relevant information. I for one feel that readers should be able to find from this single location things like who died during the war, who had a military education, which CSA officers resigned from the US Army, which US officers earned the Thanks of Congress and Medal of Honor, and which officers held major civil or military offices (Governors, federal office, ambassadorships, etc.). The other information is, I agree, extraneous, which is why I put up a comparison version. I'm also still of the opinion that nomination dates are superfluous and confusing. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the article you're referencing has a notes section, which is the one I'm emulating with my test edit; what it does not have the birth/death/college columns, and the elimination of those is what would make it look similar. If the goal is to make the articles look similar, those are the columns that we should contemplate elimination of, I believe.
Also, just as a further point, I've just done a character count test; only eliminating the notes column takes the "A" section from 12,368 bytes to 6,194; however, eliminating the columns not present in the sister article and eliminating information from the notes not in the sister article brings it down to 5,138 bytes; removing nomination dates would probably remove another 200-300 bytes more. In sections after "F", where no paring down or notes has yet been done at all, the effect would be even greater. My estimation is that rather than lowering the character count by about 307,000 bytes (which is what elimination of the note's column did), we could maintain the relevant information and bring the character count by 350,000 bytes or more. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
That's what I meant by "deduct" :) - as in decrease the size of the notes. I agree that if we cut down the size of the "Notes" section, the other sections that don't appear in the other articles should be removed as well. What does everyone else think? Are we just trying to make everything shorter or being biased towards the "Notes" section (because that's a little unfair if that's so)? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 22:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
My feeling is that, at the very least, User:Brightgalrs (who I'm hoping will drop by soon and look at this particular proposal) and I share the goal of decreasing article size... and drastically. As for bias, I think my bias is not so much towards keeping the column's existence as it is towards making the articles look the same... which, admittedly, means the same thing under the circumstances. IcarusPhoenix (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC).
@Whenaxis: By what means is bias against the Notes unfair? Let's take the very first A entry in the table and his notes as an example. They read:
Brother of Brig. Gen. William Wirt Adams.
Mississippi state senator, 1852–1856.
1st Louisiana Inf.: Lt. col., March 13, 1861, col., October 30, 1861.
Lost right eye at Shiloh.
Wounded: Perryville, Stones River (Murfreesboro).
Wounded and captured at Chickamauga, exchanged 1864.
These have apparently been reduced already, by Donner60. Given that this as American Civil War related, his role as senator is unrelated, it pre-dates the ACW by 5 years, and I don't see why the brother relation matters here. The last four points are the only notes direct related to the ACW.
That's what I'm saying. We should make it more like this article: List of American Civil War Generals (Union). If we're going to cut down the "Notes" section because it's too long because it does have some trivial information, we should get rid of the other columns that don't exist at List of American Civil War Generals (Union) because WP:TOOLONG covers the entire article not just the "Notes" section. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 00:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Explanations, detailed comments on various points raised, proposals for revisions, possible splitting
Donner60's response
Risking criticism that my comments are too long, I have posted the following explanations on the article, the revisions to the article, the comments on the article and proposals concerning the article on the talk page for List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate). I do this because the tenor of the discussion comes off quite a bit like an attack on a good faith attempt to create a useful and informative and accurate article that I was still in the process of revising. Even this explanation is not total but some earlier comments on the talk page address these same issues (without all the substantive comments) before the issue on length was raised. I may not address a few of the specific criticisms, but I think I have most of them. I do not disagree that some revisions would be useful, even necessary. I do think some thought should be given to what readers, researchers and authors might look for in a list of Civil War generals and what hooks might lead them to the main articles. I also go on at length because the discussion is a bit one-sided (although even I do not disagree with the conclusion, only the possible extent of the changes). I repeat this post here because I am not sure where the matter may finally be resolved and because I am not sure everyone who is commenting on or considering the matter on this page would look to the other page. I suppose I could have posted this paragraph and a referral only, but I copy the whole item for the convenience of anyone who simply wishes to view the entries on this page.
I start a new subsection to respond as completely as I can to various points scattered throughout the previous comments. I refer mainly to the Confederate generals list but also will comment on the brevet Union generals list.
I think the Union generals list is fine, although I suggest that the thumbnail photos are not needed and brevet generals who did not achieve full general officer rank could be left to the brevet general list. This list had not been put on line when information on some of the more notable of these officers was added to the Union general list. It seems not to be the subject of much, if any, controversy here but if the debate includes that article, those are my suggestions. The basic information about the substantive Union generals would not be touched at all.
Since I have spent considerable time on the project and such words as "ridiculous" and "crap" have been used to describe it, I hope you will indulge some explanation and defense of the work. Also, this may give some food for thought on what should be or might be profitably retained and what is of lesser value. Admittedly I was doing that by trial and error but I think I had a good reason to do that because the article was already under way when I became interested in turning it into a complete list and resource. I tried to explain this but obviously I ran out of time using the unorthodox approach to developing the article. I would do it differently with a new article or a revised article that is not as lengthy, maybe even with this article. In any event, I have been trying to create a good resource, not just some crap. So at the risk of being boring or (ironically) too detailed, I will make my statement in some detail and hope to avoid further comment or at least any detailed further comment. I won't have much time for it in the next few weeks in any event.
The notes proved to be overdone and other items could be trimmed. Especially with the formatting, and the number of entries, it is difficult if not impossible to complete the article and to see what it would look like in a word processing document. I have such a document, of course, but it is the record of the work and the information, not its base. It also can not be done in a sandbox because categories and other information leak over into the main pages and I know of no way to keep a draft for a long time without this possible disruption.
After commenting on each substantive point, I will end with a proposal as to how I would progress the article to reduce the length of the article. If the consensus is against that, or is in favor of mass deletions without taking time to save some of the material of interest, we will have to decide how to proceed.
After writing this off line, I now note the proposal to possibly split the article and IcarusPhoenix's reply to it. I will say up front that I agree with his response. I would rather see what the length of the articles might be after the proposed reductions and revisions that I propose to make, if accepted, have been made. I might even wish to see what his more drastic reductions might produce, but frankly, I think they could approach the reductions proposed by the mass deletions, which would be somewhat more than I propose. I would not reject the proposal out of hand, as I have done before, if mass deletion is the only alternative. I do think that having the information all on one page would be better for comparative analysis but I also think that keeping most of the information may be better than keeping only one page with mass deletions.
TOO LONG. I have worked the most on this article in the past two years. (This does not imply ownership but it does imply familiarity with the subject and how the article has developed.) Before the length of the article became an issue rather than just a point of discussion between a few of us, I acknowledged that it had developed to the point that it consumed too many kbs. I noted (not just on my talk page) that I was working on it in a considered way to produce a good resource of information while cutting the length. I have a few other ideas about cutting it. I may wish the article to contain more than others may wish to include, but I have realized that it should be cut and had begun to do that.
TOO LONG TAG; LISTS. The template for the "too long" tag appears to have been developed for use on long, or perhaps long and complicated or multi-faceted, articles. Lists generally are in alphabetical order and have discrete entries. They are not necessarily read, or meant to be read, from end to end or "navigated." Even if someone does "read" it, rather than peruse it, the person is likely interested in comparative information or detail on particular entries or categories or determining whether to look at a full article. Name and rank alone are not likely to serve that purpose. I think the substantive considerations concerning articles that are too long, as contrasted with the kbs used, are less likely to apply to lists. Also, since the lists are in alphabetical order, and these lists are in table grids, they are not difficult to navigate or follow. I submit this for thought, not to take back the acknowledgment of the length of the list.
RUSH; PAGE VIEWS. The article has been viewed about 9,500 more times (33,455 total) in the past 90 days than in the first three months of last year when it was shorter. Fewer than 10 people have commented on the length, most of them just recently. I suspect few, if any, would have commented if the article had not been tagged. Two years ago the list was incomplete, had some errors, was disorganized and was of little value until a few editors attempted to complete it and add information of interest and split it along the way. Perhaps I find too much of the information interesting or valuable as a gateway to articles or as a source of individual references to categories of information (e.g. generals killed during the war, West Point graduates, etc.). The organization could be improved, as I believed I was doing. With the lack of complaint and a continuing large number of page views, I thought I had time to do this. But if there is now some urgent need to perform mass deletions to get the article to a certain number of kbs in a hurry, perhaps a different approach is needed. Despite time constraints for the next few weeks, I could delete the photo column and photos easily enough. I have never thought they were necessary and kept them only because of the preference of other editors. If there is otherwise a rush to revise the article wholesale, someone else will need to do it. I suppose that one does not need any interest in or knowledge of the subject or what a previous editor was trying to accomplish to do mass deletions, but I hope some of the following points would be read and even considered.
MY AVAILABILITY. I thank the commenter who checked my user page and noted I would either be unavailable and "off line" entirely (which I have been from March 23 until today) or will have very limited time to devote to Wikipedia until about April 17. I have spent quite a lot of time on the American Civil War generals' lists so my absence from the site or this discussion does not indicate a lack of interest. I have spent quite a lot of time on Wikipedia in the past 21 months but I have had a few periods of time when I could not. This is one of them. Again, I will have only short periods of time either to comment further or to edit over the next two or even three weeks.
THUMBNAIL PHOTOS. Although I may be alone, or nearly so, among the editors who have worked on these articles, I see no need for the thumbnail photos. Many were in the list articles when I started working on them. Others have been added. So I have not deleted them or pressed for their deletion. This is the one type of information that is in the main articles on the generals. I would prefer that the kbs be used on information and not on the pictures which are (or can be) in the main articles. I agree with IcarusPhoenix that the photos are an all or nothing proposition because use of some photos makes the formatting uneven and would tempt editors to add photos back.
TABLE GRID LINES. The table format uses quite a few kbs. Unlike building kbs through more words, the format makes the entries easier to read and navigate, not more difficult. Some columns could be removed, although I would like to preserve some information in the notes as I further explain. The net reduction in the kbs would be substantial. Of course, if almost all of the information is to be deleted and perhaps only the first two columns kept, the table grid might even be removed and even more kbs saved. I don't endorse this.
BIOGRAPHY, NOT JUST ACW. While many of the generals certainly are most interesting because of their American Civil War contributions, or in some cases their lack thereof, some have interesting accomplishments that are worthy of note, may pique interest of viewers of the list or be of comparative value for research.
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION IN ARTICLES. I recently finished the last of 34 articles on the Confederate generals not covered by articles. These should have all the information in the notes (or any omissions can be quickly remedied. I used the same seven or eight sources plus an occasional more specific source. All of the articles on the few dozen most prominent generals should be comprehensive. Many of the four hundred or so other articles are stubs or need some further information. Since we seem to have little interest in working on such articles (they are all on my watchlist), it will take some time to review and edit them all. Even if they are all made satisfactorily detailed, it would seem useful to have some hooks in the comprehensive list to draw readers' interest or to provide references to generals who fit certain categories. It would seem easier to find certain information in summary form in discrete entries in a list than to search about 500 articles.
ACCESS IN ARTICLE HISTORY. I was interested to see the comment that the additional notes could be accessed in the article history. I had proposed that and may have noted somewhere in the current draft that my "maximum" draft could be found in the article history. I realized that the article on the main page should be reduced but that if someone wanted to see a longer and more detailed version, we could refer to the appropriate previous version. This is perhaps unconventional but I think would work in this case. I would rather do it in the context of the reductions I propose below, but making this reference in the article would make me more enthusiastic about cutting back (not eliminating) some of the notes.
GENERAL OFFICER RANKS. I think the most important information may be the details concerning the grades or ranks the general officers held and when they were appointed to those ranks. What rank a general held during a certain battle or at a certain time may be important to authors, researchers and editors as well as readers. I do not agree that the nomination dates are unimportant. The rank date indicates seniority and is often referred to by casual or amateur writers. It often has no relation to the actual date of appointment or the date an officer exercised general officer command. No general actually became a general until his appointment was confirmed and his commission was delivered and accepted. But the nomination date often was the appointment date, or close to it, and was a date when at least temporary command of a general officer position might take place. Early in the war, all of the relevant dates were often close together and some steps in the process even occurred on the same date. In the column, I have shown only one date for two or three steps if that was the case. Later in the war, confirmations were often held up for political reasons or because the Confederate Congress was out of session. Exercise of command under an appointment might have been exercised much earlier. These differences are very instructive. I don't think enough kbs would be saved by eliminating some dates, or some times just "nom." to justify the reduction in information. (Appointment dates, in addition to the other three dates and sometimes coincident with one or more of them, can be found for Union generals but I have no source for separate appointment dates for Confederate generals.) I thought the format looked better and was easier to follow with the general officer ranks in bold font. That, and the fact that I could not bring myself to abbreviate the ranks in this column, adds kbs.
ABBREVIATIONS. I almost never use abbreviations except U.S. or occasionally U.S.A. since this is generally discourage and is often confusing. I even have changed abbreviations to full words in some articles. I started using some abbreviations in this article to save kbs. I think most of these are obvious and would not require repetitive reference to keys. I actually would prefer not to use the abbreviations if the extra kbs in spelling out certain words would not result in deletion of more substance. Military rank abbreviations are accepted, even encourage on Wikipedia. Other than those, I think USMA for United States Military Academy, VMI for Virginia Military Institute. Sem. War for Seminole Wars and Mex-Am War for Mexican-American War are not too hard to follow. Nom. for nomination and conf. for confirmation should be easy to follow. I don't object to and might even use KIA and a few similar military abbreviations also used in the Union general article. I have not yet converted all the spelled out words to abbreviations after the "F" section. I could go either way on the use or non-use of some or all abbreviations, especially if information is kept. I would welcome comment if my general approach to revisions is accepted as the way to proceed.
UNENCYCLOPEDIC NICKNAMES, ETC.: The nicknames were all taken from the entries in the massive and encyclopedic reference that is a favorite of many Civil War authors and editors, Eicher, John H., and David J. Eicher, Civil War High Commands. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN0-8047-3641-3. They are also found in other sources cited in the reference. Some might find these interesting and even look at the article to see how the nickname came about. Others might find them boring and a waste of kilobytes. Since they are used by the Eichers and others, I don't see how they can be considered unencyclopedic. While I may have considered some comments in the text or notes as placeholders or information that could be eliminated when the article was "final," I offer them for what they are worth. Incomplete or missing reference to such topics can invite tags or premature comment.
BIRTH DATES AND PLACES: This is the first of three columns that could be eliminated, especially if some information on some generals were transferred to a note point, keeping some pertinent information but saving many kbs. Were any Confederate generals born in the north? Why did they fight for the South? Who were the oldest and youngest? Who were the longest and shortest lived after the war? This column is part of the information that answers those questions, specifically as well as generally, if someone wishes more information on the specific individuals, they know which ones to look at.
DEATH DATES AND PLACES; DEATHS DURING WAR: This column obviously is needed to determine the ages at time of death. About 20% of Confederate generals died during the war, most from wounds. The deaths during the war and those with the most notable life spans could be in a note entry for those generals to whom it applies. There is some duplication by noting the battle in which the fatal wound was received already which could be eliminated. Places of burial are given twice in the Eicher book, in the individual entries and in a separate section. Even if this is of some interest to some people, I think elimination of this information from the list would not diminish it much.
COLLEGES; PREVIOUS MILITARY TRAINING: Many Civil War generals were trained soldiers, not politicians or amateurs. Reference to those who attended West Point, VMI, the Citadel (predecessor) and a few other military schools shows this, by individual, not just in an aggregate sentence. While alumni of other colleges might disagree, I suppose the references to other colleges could be eliminated although they show that many officers were educated individuals.
PRIOR WARS; PREVIOUS MILITARY SERVICE: All Seminole War and Mexican-American War officers and veterans were not graduates of military schools and all did not remain in the U.S. Army after the war. Reference to this service adds more individuals to the list of those with military experience.
PRIOR REGULAR ARMY SERVICE, RESIGNATION: Reference is often made to the officers who resigned from the regular army and entered Confederate soldier. This entry identifies the individual officers who defected to the Confederacy. It again adds general officers with military experience to the number of Confederate generals.
BROTHER V. BROTHER; RELATIONSHIPS: Some relatives fought for opposite sides; some fought for the same side. These relationships are often commented on in reference to this, and other, civil wars. I did not even list all of the relationships, just many of the ones that seemed most direct or pertinent. On the other hand, I suppose the reference to a general born in France having been adopted by a Southerner as an explanation for how he became a Confederate general might be too insignificant a detail for a list. I might have eliminated that with one last pass through the notes - but it did have a purpose. It's not worth going on at length. There is a very incomplete article on the topic. Perhaps it would be most useful to add some information to that.
POLITICAL GENERALS; PRIOR PUBLIC OFFICE: Political offices held by officers before the war are not just as a matter of biography. Much has been written about "political" generals who owed their commissions solely to their political or societal prominence, not to any military experience, training or qualification. Identification of who they were may be of interest. (Every political general was not necessarily incompetent. Union general "Black Jack" Logan is usually considered a good general.)
RANKS BEFORE GENERAL OFFICER APPOINTMENT: Many generals were appointed general officers late in the war. To place them in the proper rank at the dates of certain battles and to see their development, an entry for their previous units and ranks completes the time line of their commissions at various times during the war.
POST-WAR POLITICAL OFFICE: I think it is of some interest and notability that many of the "Rebels" were reconstructed enough to hold state and federal positions, even elective office. A brief additional reference to these positions where applicable seems interesting and perhaps shows that some individuals may have benefited from Confederate service in the long run.
OTHER DETAILS: While I may have kept a few details I thought were interesting in the A to F sections, I would probably eliminate these in limitation of the categories of notes. That might leave a few more entries than IcarusPhoenix would use, but fewer than are currently included.
LAST THREE SECTIONS: The last three sections of officers are not unimportant but could be reduced to names and very brief notes. They include individuals who have often been identified as generals or who would have been generals if the process were completed or who were militia generals who may have briefly taken an active role in the war, but who were not regularly appointed and confirmed and commissioned Confederate general officers. They are notable and should receive some recognition. Also, some people might look for these names and try to add them to the article despite their dubious actual status, if they remained unmentioned.
PURPOSES: I have been trying to create a list with details that would interest people to click through to the main articles, to note interesting facts about certain generals, to show when they fit in certain categories and to provide dates about ranks and service dates that would be helpful to researchers and those interested in placing the generals in their proper grades as of certain dates and battles. A mere list of names is little more informative or useful than the category list of articles, except the casual reader might find it more easily.
BREVET UNION GENERAL LIST: The first section of this list contains the names of the officers who received brevet general appointments. Only about 59 of these were appointed by President Lincoln. A few of these were posthumous appointments in recognition of service. Some exercised command under the brevet appointments. All of the many others received the appointments after the war, most many months or even a few years after the war, in recognition of service. Many of these individuals are erroneously described as "generals" without further explanation that their highest actual rank was colonel or even lower. The date of rank is grossly misleading with respect to all officers not actually appointed as brevet generals by President Lincoln because there was mass backdating of rank dates, often to the arbitrary date of March 13, 1865. Most of these appointments, even if announced some time in 1865 (I have not been able to find exact dates of earlier announcements but I know that any that were made were not made by President Lincoln) were not the subject of nomination and confirmation until some time in 1866 or even later, often after or just immediately before an officer was mustered out. The information in the list is necessary to correct errors or wrong impressions about these officers and the dates and significance of their brevet appointments and, since there are not articles about many of them, to give a bit of information about them. A few entries in the notes sections for the first few letters of the alphabet and for could be removed but some date information needs to be added. I would be willing to remove the entire sections on actual rank generals that received brevet appointments before their promotions to full rank or were brigadier generals who received brevet general appointments. The information could be reworked off line to shorten the entries and to provide information not fully given in the Union general list. IcarusPhoenix has covered much of this information so temporary removal would not be as much of a loss as other removals of information.
THANKS TO ICARUSPHOENIX: Thanks to IcarusPhoenix for his contributions including creation of much material and information, his thoughts on saving space and on formatting and for noting my approach, unorthodox as it may have been, to producing an informative but manageable list.
SPLITTING THE ARTICLE: I noticed this and IcarusPhoenix's reply just before posting this note. I address this as a possibility, but after other proposals are drafted and reviewed, in the paragraph before the paragraphs with topic headings. I note it here as a possible compromise or second choice so it does not seem to be overlooked, with a little more detailed comment above. I add a brief reply where the comment is made above.
PROPOSAL: For the Confederate generals list, to eliminate kbs, I would eliminate the thumbnail photo column and all the photos as well as the columns on birth, death and college. I would add bullet points to the notes on deaths during the war (date, aged, location), officers born in the north and why they fought for the South (moved south as children or married Southern women, mostly), and the youngest, oldest, longest lived officers. This would result in a substantial reduction in kbs while keeping some hooks, the most interesting information and the information needed to put the individuals in certain categories. I would continue my reduction and reorganization of the notes but I would keep the categories of notes I have mentioned above. I would also review the notes a final time to see if more points could be eliminated while keeping the most notable items. I would use the abbreviations I have started using and mentioned above, unless there is a consensus to not use some or all of them without requiring the elimination of information. I would reduce the text and notes on the final three categories of officers to a very minimum of information. I think this would reduce the kbs considerably and still result in a list with hooks and interesting information that many readers, researchers and writers on the Civil War would find useful on a single page. I do not agree with, endorse or support a mass deletion of the information that would remain - which anyone could do as I noted above. Also, I can only accomplish this careful revision over the course of several weeks starting a few weeks from now. The line breaks and formatting alone (which add some kbs but are necessary) take considerable time, as I have found out from working on the earlier revisions. The brevet general list has basic information that needs to remain. Many of the officers have no articles and are not likely to have them. Moreover, much misinformation about these officers can be corrected through this list. There are no photos. A few notes on dates, Lincoln appointments may need to be added but a few entries might be reduced. Others have been adding to the notes so these perhaps can not be kept completely clear unless the column is eliminated or changed to cover only one or two specific additional items. I am also willing to remove the sections concerning full rank generals who received brevet appointments (or not, because the others are also listed) and to rework that information to shorten it. I thought it was better to make that information available, although not as completely edited as the first sections, than to hold it until I got around to whittling it down. In the meantime, IcarusPhoenix has added enough information to the Union general list that the temporary removal will not result in the complete disappearance of all such information on Wikipedia. If consensus can not be reached on the approach, I would prefer to have the matter decided by the military history or military biography groups or more neutral administrators - or perhaps to let someone from the majority complete the project. Thanks to all who may read and thoughtfully consider the above. Donner60 (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Donner60, thank you for your comments. I've just collapsed your response for ease of access of this noticeboard, I hope that's okay. IcarusPhoenix was mentioning that you were drafting a refactored version of the article in question - do you happen to have a userpage draft created to incorporate the ideas that you mentioned? If not, we can consult the assistance of the associated WikiProject(s), like Donner60 has suggested above, and close this thread because having two discussions open at different forums would be counterproductive. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem with the collapse; I assume (and would hope) that anyone interested in the subject would take the time to open and read it before commenting further. Unfortunately (at least if speed is at issue), I had just begun to work on it. My draft is a word processing document and I have started to put up piecemeal changes. It is not advanced and I think it is not the type of document anyone else could work with very easily. I could do a revised "A" section draft in the next few days to show where I initially would go with the revisions, if that would be helpful. As I noted, I will be quite pressed for time for about two more weeks. More because of the formatting of points in the notes, I think it will take a couple of weeks after that to do the draft. I can probably make substantial reductions in the kbs used within a few days of the day my time frees up - about April 17 or 18. Eliminating the thumbnail photos would take very little time and would result in a nice initial reduction in use, which I might be able to do earlier if that is in line with the consensus and would be useful. If the consensus is for me to make the reductions I have suggested and see how many kilobytes remain and what the list looks like, I think I can have the entire list done by the end of the month, maybe a little sooner, but not within a few days. For the immediate future, I am not sure how we will be proceeding. No other comments on my proposal have yet been made. So I suppose we do not know whether others may find my proposal acceptable or still want mass deletions. Will this controversy move to another page for resolution? I read your comment as suggesting that and, of course, it is in line with one of my suggestions. Or do we proceed by lack of further objection? Should I do the draft section or wait for more specific direction or consensus on the further draft or drafts? Of course, I do not want to do many hours of additional work only to find that the remaining information ends up deleted in its entirety anyway. I note again that I am not totally against splitting the article if revisions still leave it too long (unless the further revisions continue to be disputed as too long, I suppose). However, I would like to see how a revised page looks and how many kbs it has before splitting - which I prefer to mass deletions. Donner60 (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
We will await responses to your reply above and see what the others think. For the short term, I think making a duplicate page perhaps in a userspace sandbox is better than formatting it in a word document because then you would have to transcribe the changes you did to the word document into wiki formatting. If the others are willing to work with you, you can make changes together to the duplicate page in your sandbox. Regardless, this thread will automatically be archived after 30 days of the opening date because of the layout of this noticeboard, so, I think the best option is to move this back to the article talk page and request for assistance from related WikiProjects. There's nothing much more that can be accomplished on this noticeboard until a new refactored version has been created. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Later today, I will move a copy of the article page to a sandbox or draft article page on my user page and begin work on it there. As I have noted before, people will need to bear with me for the next 12 days or so. I will be completely unavailable and "off line" for some of those days and will have very limited time on some of the others. Travel, preparation for a medical test, the test and some recovery time will take some of the time period; a few other tasks that I need to handle within the period will take most of the rest. Then I should be able to return to my usual, greater amount of Wikipedia time. Before then, I will be unable to make much progress. Donner60 (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I have made a copy of the article at User:Donner60/Draft of article. I have made revisions to the section of generals with surnames starting with the letter "A" to show the direction I would go in making revisions to the article. I might consider deleting a few more notes. I think if the line breaks could be deleted without making the formatting look sloppy, that also would result in a considerable reduction in kbs. Unfortunately, I will have very little, if any, time to work on this for the next 12 days or so. After that, I expect to have about the same amount of time for Wikipedia reading, research, writing and editing that I have been spending on Wikipedia for the past 21 months. While this may or may not satisfy everyone, I would like to revise the article as much as possible and then consider splitting it into perhaps three pages (if there is consensus), rather than deleting the notes altogether. Donner60 (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
This has gone stale, regrettably. If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 11, 2012 at 22:45 (UTC) because dispute is stale Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 22:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
