Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 113
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | → | Archive 120 |
Talk:Elm Guest_House_child_abuse_scandal#Morrison_and_Fairbairn
![]() | One of the primary participates has been blocked, and there wasn't much activity before that. Kharkiv07Talk 13:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview One editor objects to the naming of two individuals in the lede section to an article. It seems to me there is no good reason to delete them from the lede and no supporting regulation, from MOS or other sources has been provided to reason why they should not be included. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion via Talk Page. Re-written lede (reverted). How do you think we can help? If there is a rule supporting the omission of these names I would like to know of it. At present it seem like biased deleting on the part of one editor. Summary of dispute by SleepCovoAs I have mentioned on the talk page, I do not think that Morrisson or Fairburn should be mentioned in the lead. I think it gives them undue bias against them as there are plenty of other politicians both alive and dead who have been accused, so I made the case that either they all be added to the lead or none put in at all. Both Morrison and Fairburn are mentioned later in the article, when it discusses the allegations laid out against them, this I have no problem with as in this section it talks about the other politicians who have been accused. But what I do not think is right is to single out these two individuals and only add these two names to the lead, when others are not being added. As of the present moment, the accusations are nothing more than speculations, yes the police are investigating them and the press have reported the allegations but none have been proven true, so to put their names at the forefront of this article, I believe would look like they were already guilty of child abuse, rather than merely accused. SleepCovo (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Elm Guest_House_child_abuse_scandal#Morrison_and_Fairbairn discussionHello! My name is Kharkiv07 and I'm a volunteer moderator here and will be taking your case. Before we begin I'd like to note that I am not here to give an opinion on the issue, but rather to help you discuss it between the two of you so we can have the best possible resolution. I understand what the dispute is about, weather the names should be included or not, and I believe I understand your arguments. I'd like to start by you both giving your suggested compromise, not what you want the most but what you think you can deal with if the other was to agree with it. Maybe things like, adding more names or putting them into a different part of the article, just do what you think you could both agree on. Kharkiv07Talk 19:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC) First statement by StephenjhThank you for your assistance. In response to Sleepcovo's comments above I'd like to say that adding the two names doesn't add any bias, on the contrary the bias is achieved by removing these two names from the list of accused. SleepCovo's edit did not remove all the names, nor did it add all the names, it selectively removed these two only. These two have not been "singled out" they have been included with the others to avoid partiality. It was SleepCovo's edit that 'singled them out'. The lede is quite clear, in that all the names are of accused only, that is stated. I see no reason to compromise on what I believe is selective, poor editing. The lede should "include[e] any prominent controversies" according to Wiki MOS and I think the names are important in assisting the reader's understanding of the gravity and seriousness of the article, and of the prominence of those involved in this suspected child abuse. Stephenjh (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC) First statement by SleepCovoOnce again I must add that only allegations alleging that Fairburn "participated in the parties" have so far been made. The names of the politicians are sufficiently covered in the article later on and as such do not need to be included in the lead. Stephenjh has said that 'excluding both the names has been alleged to show political bias' I disagree as if I have no objection to adding all the other named Conservative, Labour etc politicians to the lead, what I do object to is singling out just Morrison and Fairburn and adding them to the lead. Those named in the lead are all people who have either been convicted of child abuse or are known to have abused a child, with the exception of Anthony Blunt who is a disgraced spy. Those named are: Liberal MP Sir Cyril Smith, the Soviet spy Anthony Blunt, the former British diplomat Sir Peter Hayman, and the Foreign Office barrister Colin Peters, who was later jailed in 1989 for being part of a network which abused over a hundred boys. Nicholas Fairburn is only accused of having attended the Elm Street House and as such there isn't enough evidence to prove otherwise. As I have said I think that it is right to name him in the article, just not in the lead. SleepCovo (talk)! First statement by GhmyrtleI have invited Ghmyrtle into the discussion, as they seem to have a large part in the disagreement as well -Kharkiv07 The dispute between Stephenjh and SleepCovo is simply over whether Fairbairn - a prominent deceased Conservative MP who was allegedly involved in the "parties" - and Morrison - another prominent deceased Conservative MP against whom allegations of murder have been made - should be mentioned in the lead. Allegations have been made against many others, who have (so far) not been named in the lead. Serious allegations have been made against both Fairbairn and Morrison - but they are different allegations. Because they are both former Conservatives, they have tended to be lumped together in the argument - excluding both the names has been alleged to show political bias, though I reject that suggestion. Both Stephenjh and SleepCovo have, I think, taken somewhat over-simplistic views on this. Having looked at it in more detail, my suggestion today - which could be seen as a compromise, though I think it's more policy-based - is to include Fairbairn's name in the introductory paragraphs on the basis of consistency with others named as having participated in the "parties" (such as Cyril Smith), but not to include Morrison as the allegations against him, though potentially more serious, are also less concrete. As I've said on the talk page, I would not support the idea of removing all individuals' names from the lead, because including them gives a good indication to readers of the level of prominence of those involved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Stephenjh's responseI will happily accept any decision that is policy based. Stephenjh (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC) SleepCovo's responsePinging @SleepCovo: for response. Kharkiv07Talk 20:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
|
Talk:Lee Kuan_Yew
![]() | Futile, due to lack of participation by significant parties to the dispute. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lee_Kuan_Yew#Lee_Kuan_Yew Both editors assert that Mr Lee KY is the ONLY person in the whole WORLD, to have brought a country from 3rd world in 1st world in a single generation. I attest to this as it is clear that other countries like Taiwan and Japan have similar or larger development under a single ruler and political party. Then, both editors starts citing sources that are either a rehash of this article and may not be usable. (See talk page for arguments for and fro it) I take as the debate about this issue reached a standstill as whenever I made revisions to it, either users will add it back. Just a little add on: This article may have breached WP:NPOV, You don't need to take my words for it, just read it. Some of the paragraphs starts with "Lee is widely admired", "Lee was a captivating orator" and "Lee ... (was) of high intelligence." If might have been attributed to the Singapore media being used as a source. The media here is not free and tends to side the ruling party and ranked 149th in press freedom ranking. Cheers. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I presented facts and two countries that clearly transformed from a single generation by a single ruling person and party/ How do you think we can help? Need people who are analytical, weigh hard facts (look at Taiwan - Mr Sun Yat-sen, ruled for 42 years, brought Taiwan to what's today), instead of plainly relying on sources that are clearly ctrl+c and ctrl+v from Wikipedia. Summary of dispute by WrigleygumPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ZhanzhaoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Have already tried discussing this in the page, and put forth the following points, but were previously rejected: The point about LKY being "1) the only person to have 2) transformed the nation from 3rd world to 1st in 3) a single generation" can be broken down into a 3 parts. 2) and 3) come out so common that I don't even know why there is an argument about this. Just recently at the funeral, one of the US senators said just that [1]. Granted that was a Singapore website reporting it, but unless you say the site is making up the quote, you can't argue with that. Many here [2][3]. The debate about what constitutes a generation is not up to us to decide. As Lee480 previously acknowledged, there are various definitions. What is undeniable is that this "one generation" description is used so often in reports around the world to describe LKY's accomplishment, that there is no need to define what a generation is. The sources says it as such, and it is not up to us to question why the sources used that word. As for counterpoint of other people/parties having done the same, if some party did it, that does not disqualify LKY being the only one since you are comparing a party to a person. More importantly, those other leaders and parties that Lee480 used as rebuttals haven't been described as having fulfilled pts 2 and 3 of turning a third world country into a first in one generation. Unless Lee480 can show a source that explicitly describes another single person that fulfilled 2 and 3, he is just synthesizing his argument as he goes along. For example, I would not use this link to support the statement, since it only vaguely describes a "transformation" (too vague, not "third world to first"), even though it meets the "one generation" criteria. The only arguable point would be the "only person/leader" arguement. I put forth 2 links as evidence, but they were rejected by Lee480 since he said the writer cut/pasted from wikipedia. Again this goes back to the point that if the source used the quote, and its a reliable source, its not up to us to decide that just because they use information from wikipedia, they are not credible. Per WP:CIRC, the sources practiced editorial control, and if they think that Wikipedia is reliable for that article, its allowed. Which is the case, as it was not a pure mirror of wiki's content, the authors of the articles I quoted had taken phrases here and there, but have rearranged it for the narrative they were writing. Or, we can just write that LKY is "recognized"/"described" for this accomplishment. Putting it this way makes it not a full statement of fact, but acknowledges that he is known for this. This actually relates to the points that Lee480 brought up about NPOV. A lot of the positive descriptions about Lee can actually qualified by adding a "LKY was known for", "LKY was described as", "XXX article described Lee as" etc. All the attributes prescribed to LKY can actually be found in publication and sources not from within Singapore media. And even then, that should not mean that local media sources cannot be used. Its just a matter of striking a balance in source and writing. There is an ongoing effort to bring this article to GA status, so editors are only starting to work on this. It should get better as it goes along. Keep the discussion going there. Summary of dispute by HaeBPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Lee Kuan_Yew discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
If I may volunteer to mediate, despite a conflict of interest since, I too am editing that article. However, by force of argument I should be able to settle this. Question is, whether "Sun Yat-sen brought Taiwan to where it is today", or paraphrasing it in the context of our article, "like Lee Kuan Yew transformed Singapore to a first-world economy, Sun Yat-sen transformed Taiwan to a first-world economy". If this statement stands, it would mean Lee Kuan Yew will NOT BE THE ONLY founder/leader of his country to have done so. The question can be settled rather quick if we assume Wikipedia articles as good sources. Wikipedia article on Sun Yat-sen says he died in 1925. A quick search results in the Wikipedia article Taiwan Miracle, wherein the section- 'Era of globalization' has this line: "In 1952, Taiwan had a GNP of... Zaire and Congo. But, by 2010...GNP... soared to...that of... Germany". The dispute has been brought to this forum whose very premise is factually incorrect and therefore needs to be dismissed right at the outset. The need to refer to any external reliable source does not arise. The above quoted, two wikipedia articles suffice to disprove the foundation of the argument put forth. Disputing editors need now, to go back to the article and continue their discussions there. I propose closure of the case. SourceOhWatch (स्रोतः उवाच) (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
|
Talk:North Head,_New_Zealand#Volcano_and_reserve
![]() | Closed for lack of participation. This same issue is also being discussed at AN/I by the same participates. Kharkiv07Talk 15:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview The article is about a volcanic cone/hill which is in a historic reserve, which is on a headland. Last year the hill gained an official name (which was previously a disputed name with two competing unofficial names), and the reserve changed its name. An IP editor believes that the hill and the reserve are the same entity, and the hill naming never took place. -- haminoon (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC) To clarify this for foreign editors, the three names are:
I consider the volcano name to be the most significant, and that the article is primarily about the volcano. The government, council and iwi (tribes) went through a lengthy process to decide on the names of Auckland's volcanos. This ended last year and some ended up with two names and some with only one. Because of the spiritual significance of Maungauika it ended up with only one name. The IP editor appears unhappy with this decision and has changed the article to suit what they wish the decision was. The decision has been backed up with several references. I am unable to fix the factual errors because of the 3R rule. I think the IP's edits should be reverted to the previous status quo while this is discussed. -- haminoon (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
We have discussed it on the talk page. Evidence was given. How do you think we can help? Unsure. Summary of dispute by 101.98.216.2Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:North Head,_New_Zealand#Volcano_and_reserve discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Coordinator's note: Sufficient discussion and notice, waiting for summary from responding editor (to whom I would strongly recommend, first, always signing and dating your posts with four tildes and, second, creating a user account so that you can always be easily identified and have a continuing user talk page, since you're editing from a dynamic IP address which sometimes changes) and then acceptance by a DRN volunteer. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
|
Talk:If I_Fell
![]() | Extremely stale case, no discussion has occurred in months, as well as the fact that the named party hasn't edited since 2009. Kharkiv07Talk 18:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview "If I fell" is a Beatles song with authorship credited to John Lennon and Paul McCartney. Paul McCartney, who is a credited author of the song, has stated in interviews that he made a contribtion to this song's composition and authorhip. The Wikipedia article however states that the sone "was written by John Lennon" and thus does not recognize McCartney's contributions, nor does it even reference or acknowledge what McCartney has claimed regarding the song's authorship. I do not believe that a Wikipedia article writer or reader should be able to control or decide who wrote a song or who did not, nor should he or she be able to exclude commentary from one of the credited authors as to his role in writing such song.
Extensive comments on Talk Discussion page including references to statements made by Paul McCartney--one of the song's credited authors. How do you think we can help? Include in the article statements made by Paul McCartney regarding the song's authorship. Summary of dispute by User:PizzarelloPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:If I_Fell discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal
![]() | Procedural close based on one of the two participants refusing to engage in this case. — Keithbob • Talk • 00:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The lede in the article Mumia Abu-Jamal does not summarize the entire article, but rather repeats details contained in portions of the article which appeal to an editor's POV. A lede should compactly summarize the contents of an article of this size in a short, declarative paragraph or two. This article is not so long that it needs five huge paragraphs that tediously repeat detailed info contained in lower sections. Further, some of the grammar in the unedited version would shame any grade schooler. Also, many of the links throughout the article do not work (due to link rot?), and personal blogs are being inappropriately used as sources. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the matter with another editor. How do you think we can help? Please have a neutral third party write a fresh, revamped, unbiased lede. Or, simply reinsert my reverted version with any reasonable fixes. Also, add working links for neutral sources throughout the entire article and disallow the use of personal blogs as sources. Summary of dispute by DrKiernanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This request is premature. The issue is still under discussion at the article talk page, by more than the two editors listed here. DrKiernan (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
DRN is a place for discussion of content only. Please talk about the content issues and stop discussing each other's past behavior if you want this case to remain open. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Moderators SummaryI have carefully read the arguments for and against. The lead does need to summarise most of the key points. In this case there are only a couple that are left out. I also bear in mind that the article is a Featured article. Extra care needs to be taken when adding content as it may not be in line with the wp:MOS. TheMagikCow (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
|
MyEx.com
![]() | No second party is listed and the filing part is the subject of an open thread at ANI. Also the filing party has been warned about edit warring and is a suspected sockpuppet. For all of these reasons I'm closing this case without prejudice for a relisting in the future. — Keithbob • Talk • 20:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Filing party blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Several Editors including ScrapIronIV, Félix Wolf and Trivialist have undone my contribution to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyEx.com where I simply advised victims of Internet Revenge Porn site MyEx.com on how to remove their photographs/videos free of charge by contacting non-profit victims' advocacy group: Citizens Against Revenge Porn (CARP). While these editors agree that my contribution was 'in good faith', they, at the same time claim that it is either 'spam'/'not meant for Wikipedia'. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have left several comments on the Editors' Talk page - to no avail. How do you think we can help? Allowing this sort of vandalism on Wikipedia is unjust. How is it that one Editor is permitted to 'advertise' MyEx.com's web site by authoring an article about it, but another is prevented from advising victims of MyEx.com on how to remove their photographs/videos? This is nonsensical and smacks of a hidden agenda. I strongly suspect that those profiting from MyEx.com's extortion of its victims are behind the undoing of my post. Kindly adjudicate this matter. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
MyEx.com discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Muhammad Ali_Jinnah#Jinnah_did_not_have_any_Punjabi_ancestry.21
![]() | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance and the other editor has only one talk page edit on this subject. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview The dispute is about the ancestry/family history of Muhammad Ali JInnah. This individual was of Gujarati ancestry (from the state of Gujarat, India). This is common knowledge among South Asians. And I have left 5 different, neutral, sources to confirm it. Another user, is claiming Jinnah of having a male ancestor from another ethnic group, the Punjabis. This person is using an unreliable, questionable source to support his/hert claims.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? On the talk page of the article, I have tried to explain to this individual that the sources he is using are unreliable and that Jinnah's family history is common knowledge among South Asians. I have left several reliable sources as-well. How do you think we can help? Let us explain our sides and you can be the judge. Summary of dispute by 202.69.11.28Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Muhammad Ali_Jinnah#Jinnah_did_not_have_any_Punjabi_ancestry.21 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Links in APL (programming language)
![]() | Failed: Did not get a response on questions about external links - Continue discussion elsewhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | |||
---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview The linked talk page section begins with a dispute between LongTermWikiUser (LTWU) and myself over two maintenance boxes I added, {{external links}} and {{overly detailed}} (originally {{tone}}). I removed the external links, allowing the removal of the former box, and believed that this problem was done. In an edit summarized as "correction", LTWU removed the other box. I dropped that stick.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have only discussed this at any length on the linked talk page section. How do you think we can help? I hope that a good consensus can be worked out with regards to the inclusion of external links in the running prose of the article. Ideally, we'd also reach a consensus on whether the maintenance boxes should be there, but that's less in the scope of the original dispute. Summary of dispute by LongTermWikiUserPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Issues:
The Telegraph, UK 8/6/2014: Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales: "History is a human right." LongTermWikiUser (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Mdann52Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Tim PiercePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
—Tim Pierce (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Links in APL (programming language) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello! I am a volunteer at the DRN. It is my opinion that links in text are generally not a good idea. I believe that the tags were justified. The further reading section seems fine to me though. We could perhaps move the links in prose to there? That seems the most sensible to me. TheMagikCow (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
First statement by volunteer moderatorI will accept this case to serve as the volunteer moderator. I don't know anything about the APL programming language, having used many programming languages but not APL. Please comment on content, not on contributors. Please be concise and civil. (Civility is a requirement everywhere in Wikipedia.) It appears that one of the issues has to do with the use of external links. Have all of the participants read the Wikipedia First statement by APersonThe way I read EL, and especially ELCITE, is that external links should be located in their own section at the bottom of the article by convention. As a consequence, I don't think external links should go in the main prose of the article without a good reason. As LongTermWikiUser would like them to be used, they would essentially serve as wikilinks:
In my opinion, none of the usages here represent compelling reasons to go against the position of the external links guideline. APerson (talk!) 02:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC) First statement by LongTermWikiUserFirst statement by Mdann52Just noting here that I agree with not including external links in the article body, except in limited circumstances (eg. referring to stuff that we could never write articles on, such as legal code). However, in this case, it appears to be unnecessary, as articles were written on those topics, and could easily be rewritten if needed. I'm unlikely to be about much, so please ping me if my attention is required urgently. Mdann52 (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC) First statement by Tim PierceFirst, I'd like to observe that technically, Wikipedia:External links is a guideline and not a policy. Many of the arguments in favor and against it still apply, but let's be clear about how strong a boundary it is. My sense of LongTimeWikiUser's argument is that they disagree with the underlying principles of Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Too much detail. That's certainly a reasonable position to take, but those are well-established Wikipedia guidelines nonetheless. Absent an argument that's specific to APL (programming language) to explain why those guidelines should not be followed here, it seems to me that they should continue to apply. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Second statement by volunteer moderatorBased on the statements of the other editors besides User:LongTermWikiUser, it appears that they are saying that LongTermWikiUser wants to add external links in the body of the article, and the use of external links in the article body is contrary to the guidelines on external links. So my primary question at this time is for LongTermWikiUser. Which of the following is correct?
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Also, for all editors, are there any other issues concerning this article besides the issue about external links? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Second statement by APersonBesides external links, the other issue is that at the moment, the article and the way detail is added to it are both going against SS and Wikipedia's other rules regulating detail in articles. The extra detail should be moved to the "subtopic" articles (e.g. Development of APL or something) or removed altogether. APerson (talk!) 22:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Second statement by LongTermWikiUserSecond statement by Mdann52Second statement by Tim PierceThe other issue at hand, besides external links, is excessive and overlong detail. —Tim Pierce (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Third statement by volunteer moderatorUser:LongTermWikiUser - Please reply to the above question about external links. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC) User:APerson, User:Tim Pierce - Please indicate what sections of the article you think contain too much detail. Please indicate whether you think that those sections can be trimmed and that adequate detail is present in child articles, or whether you think that the detail should be trimmed and moved into child articles, or propose some other action. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC) Third statement by APersonThird statement by LongTermWikiUserThird statement by Mdann52Third statement by Tim PierceFourth statement by volunteer moderatorUnfortunately, I am closing this discussion as failed. The primary issue had been the external links. User:LongTermWikiUser included the external links. Other editors said that the inclusion of external links in the article body violate the guidelines on external links. LongTermWikiUser has not responded to my questions. At this point what I can say is that there is no consensus in favor of the links, and there appears to be a rough consensus against the links. If LongTermWikiUser wants to keep or add links, they may either publish a Request for Comments at the article talk page, Talk: APL (programming language), or they may publish a Request for Comments at the talk page on external link guidelines to change the guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Concerning the issue of some of the sections having too much detail, please continue the discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
|
State of Somaliland
![]() | Futile. Listed five days and a majority of participants have not yet agreed to participate. Consider a RFC. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview David H. Shinn which i used has a reliable source on the question of Thirty five states recognized Somaliland in 1960 during its brife existence is thrown out and instead is changed with a chinese document that is a fraud not only me but also by by The International Court of Justice which i asked them to look at the document and after i showed Middayexpress that, he insist on keeping the fraud document and i can not rvt him every time and about David H. Shinn we have been talking about him in the talk page for over 2 weeks and the chinese document is only found on (http://wardheernews.com/Organizations/NSPU/ICJ%201-01-12.pdf) nowhere else not on the chinese goverment sites or on The International Court of Justice site . Have you tried to resolve this previously? David H. Shinn is a reliable source agreed by —Largo Plazo and me and by showing a email from the International Court of Justice on the Chanise document is a fraud Middayexpress insist on using it and i asked him to show the source of the document twice . How do you think we can help? simply look at both of the documents and you decide which is a reliable source. for the 35 countries recognizing Somaliland in 1960 during its brife existence. Summary of dispute by MiddayexpressBasically, Hadraa does not want the claim that a state of Somaliland was diplomatically recognized by 35 countries, including all five permanent representatives of the United Nations Security Council, to be attributed to the separatist administration of the present-day Somaliland autonomous region in northwestern Somalia. He would rather this disputed claim be made in Wikipedia's voice in the text, and in the coding itself linked to one David Shinn (a former US Ambassador to Ethiopia). This is despite the fact that a) Shinn has himself explicitly indicated that he is strictly speaking in a personal capacity rather than on behalf of the U.S. government. He wouldn't be able to anyway as a former official ("although I spent 37 years with the U.S. Department of State, my views are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the American government[...] nor do I speak for any foreign government" [4]). The U.S. government in fact indicates in no uncertain terms that it did not recognize a state of Somaliland in 1960, but instead only the Somali Republic as a whole ("the United States recognized the Somali Republic on July 1, 1960, in a congratulatory message from President Dwight D. Eisenhower to President Aden Abdulla Osman" [5]; "the United States did not extend formal recognition to Somaliland, but Secretary of State Herter sent a congratulatory message dated June 26 to the Somaliland Council of Ministers[...] formal recognition was not extended because Somaliland's period of independence was to be of such short duration and was timed to permit it to unite immediately with Somalia when the latter became independent" [6]); b) the 35 countries claim originates with the separatist present-day Somaliland region's administration itself; and c) disputed claims should be attributed rather than made in Wikipedia's voice per WP:WikiVoice ("opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice[...] rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources"). The supposed email from the International Court of Justice that Hadraa alludes to above is something he mentioned for the first time only a few minutes ago on the talk page. Although he claims that it was personally sent to him, he never bothered linking to the email itself to substantiate its existence. This is likely because no such email in fact exists. Middayexpress (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AcidSnowPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by LargoplazoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
State of Somaliland discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#The removal of non notable awards on film articles
![]() | Futile. Both of the opposing editors have indicated that they do not wish to participate here (as is their right: no one is required to participate). — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Some editors at the Wikiproject are pushing a local view on list entries, particularly awards in a "List of awards" article, claiming the Wikiproject has a consensus (which past, linked discussion contradicts) decreeing that items on a list need to have their own WP article in order to be reliably sourced in a List article. Community-wide consensus, i.e. guidelines, and MOS does not support this view, e.g. WP:NOTESAL, WP:LSC. In the current Wikiproject discussion, a past discussion was linked on a proposal to change the MOS to partly adjust to this view, and it should be noted no consensus was reached there (MOS was not changed). I, and others in past discussions, have pointed out that editors in Wikiprojects don't make their own guidelines or reinterpret them as they see fit, and demand others abide by that, per WP:CONLIMITED and WP:PROJPAGE. The editors in question have refused to accept that, and continue reverting per their view, claiming local consensus and one claiming WP:INDISCRIMINATE (which is not the case given that numerous awards from an IMDb page are left off, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not declare that names, organizations, schools, awards, et al, without articles cannot be sourced in an article. A couple of editors, one an admin, at the present discussion have also disagreed with those editors. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Lengthy, and now redundant, discussion at the Wikiproject talk page, where past discussions contradicting their claims was linked. How do you think we can help? Confirm as a third party that the linked guidelines do not support their view, including the claim that their supposed local consensus overrides community guidelines which evidently allow sourced info and items such as awards in "List of awards and nominations" articles, whether or not the items have their own article (which is not remotely a requirement anyway).
Summary of dispute by Lady LotusThere is no need for this. The consensus was clear and Lapadite thinks that ONLY a guidline change is relevent to remove the awards giving consensus no thought. I'd also like to add that Lapadite keeps saying that the awards from the IMBd page are left off and IMDb is not a reliable source - they get awards wrong all the time. LADY LOTUS • TALK 10:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by LugnutsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#The removal of non notable awards on film articles discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
There's also this discussion about listing nominations for notable and non-notable awards. Furthermore, the policy on Notability states rather clearly that it does NOT apply to content, Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article. As long as there is sufficient sourcing for an award, it can be included in the article. This is seemingly acceptable for mainstream actors and their articles with overwhelming emphasis on Bollywood actors. Many of which have SEPARATE articles just to list their awards and nominations. This double standard is biased, prejudicial, and harmful to the Project. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
References
|
Talk:Andrew Rosindell
![]() | Primarily conduct dispute, DRN does not handle matters which are primarily conduct disputes. Contact an administrator or file at ANI for conduct disputes. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Sorry if I have followed procedures wrong btw, I have never filed one of these before. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview There is a disagreement between the user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dtellett However most concerning is he has placed an "edit-in-process" to prevent editors from undoing his changes. This to me seems against the spirit of wikipedia. Please could an experienced editor advise if this is allowed? To me it seems that he is basically hacking/circumventing the editing system. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Have tried to discuss this but he keeps reverting the changes - calling them disruptive, and has also started editing a page so no-one else may edit it. How do you think we can help? To advise on the content of the page (e.g. I feel this user is guilty of WhiteWashing - he also told me he has more authority as a registered user), and also to comment on the tactic of putting the page unable to revert edits.
Summary of dispute by DetellettPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Andrew Rosindell discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Moon landing#.22Men.22_vs._.22People.22
![]() | As filed, this is a conduct matter over the issue of civility and DRN neither accepts cases about conduct nor allows discussions of conduct. Several of the responding parties have mentioned content issues, but some of them have also indicated that they do not believe that dispute resolution is needed on those issues at this point in time, while other responders have only mentioned conduct issues. In light of this, I'm going to close this as a conduct matter, but invite anyone who believes dispute resolution may be needed on a content issue to refile and limit the request only to content, not conduct. Conduct matters should be referred to an administrator or filed at ANI. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Following a thread on a politically oriented subreddit, there has been a volatile stream of edits and reversions in the last couple days, and I'm concerned that civility has decreased markedly. The dispute is over the presence of "crewed" compared to some editors' preferred usage of "manned." Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've raised the need for civility and pointed out my concern about brigading with a link to an external site. I made one good faith reversion of an edit by an unregistered user, but have now disengaged as more edits and reversions built up. Edit: it's been pointed out to me that the more neutral term is "canvassing." How do you think we can help? I am unsure how to proceed, but I think moderation could help improve the quality of discussion. I don't have a strong preference of wording -- I think "crewed" is slightly better -- but my main concern is to address a deterioration of civility, which has the potential to worsen Wikipedia's systemic bias against female editors' participation. Summary of dispute by PeterTheFourthPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Hi! I think crewed is slightly better wording than manned- it's more current, understandable language in my opinion. 'Man' strikes me as a very odd verb. NASA seems to be using the term crewed interchangeably with manned. I reverted twice to preserve crewed partly because there has been offsite co-ordination to change the wording, which does not seem in line with Wikipedia policy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC) @Rhoark: It is very disingenuous to call preservation of the initial wording a change. From the 20th of February, 2015, to the 9th of April, 2015, the wording was 'crewed' and 'uncrewed' with no objection. It is my understanding that the wording angered members of some sort of offsite forum and there began a campaign to change it, to prove some sort of point- hence my resistance to this effort. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by RhoarkRaising concerns about brigading or canvassing in the dispute resolution is a red herring. This is something that has previously been discussed at WikiProject Spaceflight. There was no consensus for the formation of a specific guideline, but there was consensus that it was undesirable to have mass purging of "manned" from historical articles as was attempted. Talk page consensus is against the change. Disregarding anyone apparently canvassed or counter-canvassed, there is unanimity against the change. Rhoark (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC) @PeterTheFourth: What is disingenuous is calling an edit without consensus the status quo because it escaped notice for a while. Manned/unmanned terminology has been used on the page since its creation in 2005. Rhoark (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by aflyingkittenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
DISCLAIMER:First time doing any of this so sorry if I mess it up. As far as I can see, the term "Manned" and "Unmanned" in almost all cases in the article was changed to "Crewed" and "Uncrewed" with little to no discussion as some editors believe "Manned" and "Unmanned" are somehow gender biased (Apologies if I misunderstood). Personally I don't believe dispute resolution is required as I haven't seen any real incivility in the discussion besides some debatable assertions (Brigading, SPA). I haven't made any changes to the article myself but personally would support the use of the word "manned", since it is overwhelmingly the word used in the sources and historically in spaceflight. Furthermore, besides one example in the American Heritage dictionary , I can't find another dictionary that supports "Uncrewed" being a word. In summary, I think that any dispute is simply a disagreement over whether the word "manned" only applies to men, or is gender biased, instead of simply meaning "carrying or operated by one or more persons" in a similar way that "Manpower" and "Management" are not gender exclusive terms. (Also, unrelated but is anyone else getting the title of the section weirdly? mine says .22Men.22) As I've said on the talk, I hope this doesn't get heated, as frankly, it's not really that big of a deal, and there's no need for anyone to attack one another over it. Aflyingkitten (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by StormwatchPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by JustinTime55Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Onel5969Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Hi. Like another editor, this is my first time in a dispute resolution, so apologies if I don't do it correctly. At some point in the recent history, an editor took it upon themselves to change the terminology in the article. Reverting and re-reverting began to take place, and uncivil terms were used by editors on both sides of the argument ("brigade", "ridiculous"). Not sure a dispute resolution is needed, as I believe that per wiki guidelines if a consensus cannot be reached the status quo should be preserved. However, in looking over the talk page, I believe that a consensus had been reached (to maintain that status quo - but then I'm not an admin). The research done by several editors showed that the historic term, and that used in the vast majority of material was unmanned. Another search raises concern over the actual term uncrewed as a real word. Anyway, that's my .02. Onel5969 (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MeanMotherJrPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Hello. This is also my first time participating in a dispute resolution, so bear with me. I made the edits changing back "crewed" to "manned" seeing that although the initial change was made in attempt to promote gender-neutral language, "manned" itself is not only gender-neutral, but the term used historically and in the present the vast majority of the time (6:1 ratio). There isn't much of a debate to this; if one looks at the Google search results for "definition of manned", they will see that it is indeed gender-neutral according to nearly all dictionaries ("(especially of an aircraft or spacecraft) having a human crew.") https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=definition%20of%20manned The change from "manned" to "crewed" seemed unnecessary and seemed to promote an agenda similar to the language manipulation seen in "womyn" and "congressperson". I don't believe Wikipedia should become a hugbox for people with a specific political point of view; it should use the terms that are either historically correct and/or used by officials (in this case, NASA). Talk:Moon landing#.22Men.22_vs._.22People.22 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Russ Martin
![]() | Closed as premature. Like all dispute resolution at Wikipedia, the dispute resolution noticeboard requires extensive talk page conversation. Please discuss this at the article's talk page before coming here. Kharkiv07Talk 03:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I'm trying to list the full cast list for the show, which keeps being deleted no matter how many revisions I make or how I explain the changes I am doing. I have made edits prior to these that were deemed appropriate by other users. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have discussed what changes I was making and given ideas on how to incorporate them into the page. How do you think we can help? Give an outside view on the changes being made and if the editing done by either user is disruptive. Summary of dispute by JytdogPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Jay-SebastosPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Russ Martin discussionOP is a newbie who doesn't appear to have read any WP:PAG, certainly not WP:RS. Close this and send fish products. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 21:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
|
Emina (poem)
![]() | Manually filed request, breaks page formatting and automation. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
User:Yerevani Axjik began vandalizing Emina on 5 April 2015. The poem was written by a Bosnian Serb writer in the year 1902 about a Bosnian girl. The user removed any mention of the poem being Bosnian, the girls ethnicity was changed from Bosniak to the offensive Yugoslav-era term Bosnian Muslim and added Serbian categories to the article. I reverted the edits and we have been having a discussion about the users edits, which I feel to be nationalistic, for the past few days but it's getting no where between the two of us. --Sabahudin9 (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
|
Talk:Jihad Dib
![]() | Consensus already reached on the talk page, with the filer agreeing with everyone else. Procedural close. Mdann52 (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by 58.106.235.75 on 06:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The article is about a man and i want to add his children's names in the relevant field, while others (especially 1 editor) do not. They claim that the children are not notable, while i claim that many more prominent articles have the names of non-notable children listed; plus the non-notable spouses names seem to be an acceptable addition, so why not for the kids? Have you tried to resolve this previously? We discussed on the talk page, with no real settlement. How do you think we can help? I need some outside opinion who can read the talk page arguments and come to a conclusion that is not biased as a result of the previous edit conflict on the article. Summary of dispute by WWGBPlease keep it brief – less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by FrickegThe dispute has been resolved. Frickeg (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Talk:Jihad Dib discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Coordinator's note: Notices given, discussion is adequate. Parties: Please provide short summaries in the spaces provided above and wait for a volunteer to open the case for discussion before beginning other discussion here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
|
Providence (religious movement)
![]() | Failed: No evidence of ability to reach consensus, possibly due in part to 4-1 consensus against proposed changes, alleging proposals have dubious sources and fringe claims - Referred discussion back to talk page. Montanabw(talk) 00:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The Providence(religious movement) is religious group based in South Korea whose leader has been accused and convicted of several serious crimes. Despite the controversial nature of the subject, there is a policy issue I have been trying to address in keeping with WP:NPOV: 1. What the Providence group claims to believe religiously is different from what critics claim that the group believes. 2. Both sides are supported by secondary sourcing. 3. My suggested compromise: simply add a "criticism" or "controversy" section to the article per the exception for religious articles under WP:CRITICISM. (i.e. critics claim that members believe...) This is the model used by many other articles on controversial new religious movements. However, as many editors on the page have had heated exchanges with members of the group, they seem wary of accepting any edits that are not critical of the group. I'm sure they are acting in WP:GOODFAITH, but it is coming off a bit as ownership. Also, concerned as one editor PeterDaley72 is actively maintaining websites denigrating the Providence group WP:COI. Discussions do not seem to be progressing. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on talk page. How do you think we can help? Help us to reach a compromise in keeping with WP:NPOV that allows for the entirety of the subject to be presented in an academic manner despite the fact that the subject is extremely controversial and potentially difficult subject matter to work with. Summary of dispute by Jim 1138I agree with PeterDaley72 I seriously doubt the "member beliefs" would be anything more than the Church's own propaganda. If members' beliefs are to be included they should be by a reputable second source, likely not involved with the Church and definitely selected for the purpose of a white-wash. Jim1138 (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ShiiI don't have time to participate in this discussion and I won't be editing the page in the near future, but I think this statement by GIOSCali is misleading: "What members of the Providence group claim to believe religiously is different from what critics claim that members believe." Reliable secondary sources attest that this group purposefully misleads outsiders about its true nature. We have not only news media but also academic sources that explain the group's actual teachings. Sometimes primary sources can be used to support claims about what a group says about itself, but I would trust the primary sources surrounding this group about as far as I could throw them. Shii (tock) 11:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by PeterDaley72The material suggested for inclusion as "member beliefs" is an attempt to whitewash the article to some extent by presenting "beliefs" the group only claims publically. The selected quotes are in contrast to material included in the in-house book from which cherry-picked quotes have been selected that the requesting contributor is requesting insertion of, material which he/she is strangely reluctant to include which I think is a pretty clear indication of an agenda not inline with the point of this site. The suggested insertions are also in stark contrast to teachings and sermons published by the group on closed forums which show that members believe that the convicted serial rapist leader is the messiah (as mentioned in the article), that he has supernatural powers, that the Holocaust was a wonderful event, and that you will die if you don't obey the leader etc. The material presented as "member beliefs" is simply how the leadership would like their criminal organisation viewed by outsiders and potential victims. I don't really see any value in presenting propaganda as fact. I have been researching this group for 12 years now over at www.jmscult.com. I appeared in one of the sourced media links as an expert on the subject and contributed to several other media reports with more in the works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11K8R8kmwtM Regarding the accusation that I operate a site denigrating the Providence group, my site (www.jmscult.com) provides factual information about a criminal organization that operates worldwide and is led by a convicted serial rapist. One relevant section of my site documents news reports: http://jmscult.com/forum/index.php?topic=77.msg2196#msg2196 To denigrate means to criticise unfairly. I'm really not sure it's possible to degenerate a Hitler-praising convicted serial rapist/cult leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterDaley72 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC) PeterDaley72 (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)PeterDaley72 Summary of dispute by John CarterI was wondering if I could add myself to the list of "parties" here, given that User:Shii, who is almost certainly one of the best "topic-area experts" we have around wikipedia in this field, has indicated he won't be participating, and having someone to at least try to partially fill the gap in his absence seems reasonable to me. It seems to me, based on what I can see, that there are basically two questions here: (1) the statements of belief by individual members of the community in question, and (2) statements of belief by independent outside sources, presumably in contact with active and/or former members. In my history of dealing with articles about religious beliefs, which is rather extensive, I have always gotten the impression that the members go out of there way to emphasize the beliefs which will help them get positive reception by the community, and downplay and/or refuse to talk about beliefs which have less public appeal. It seems to me that this matter might be one of the points of consideration here. One of the other points is exactly how to phrase the statements of belief. In most religious traditions, we already have, or should have, separate articles or subsections of articles describing most of them, and simply linking to them is generally enough, except in the cases where such sections don't yet exist or where there are unusual variations on them unique to the group. Lastly, there is a regrettable but real question about who even the best independent reliable sources get their information from. "Happy campers" do not as a rule run to the media to talk about the problems of the groups they are involved in, dissatisfied people, and particularly real opponents, tend to lunge at every camera or reporter they can find. This can in some cases raise questions regarding how reliable the sources of information used by those independent reliable sources are. Anyway, just a few ideas, but I would welcome information about whether there would be any objections to my adding myself as a party. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Talk:Providence (religious_movement) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
GIOSCali (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Coordinator's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is her/his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page — {{subst:drn-notice|Providence (religious movement)}} — ~~~~ — can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note pointing here. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Opening by moderatorOK everyone, I'll take this on. I will note for the record that I am uninvolved in this case, I am a new DRN moderator, My goal here is to see if I can help you all to reach a mutually satisfying resolution of the disagreement above. I will remind everyone to focus on content, not contributors and to remain civil at all times. To cut to the chase, as this issue has languished and there has already been some discussion, I would like everyone here to make a second statement below outlining 1) what you see as the single biggest issue and 2) what compromises or concessions YOU are willing to make in the name of reaching a solution. Montanabw(talk) 01:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hope that helps structure the debate. Montanabw(talk) 01:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Second Statement by GIOSCaliThank you Montanabw for taking on the case, and to the other editors for also taking part this discussion. I would happily welcome John Carter to the discussion. Primary Concern My primary concern with the article is the incomplete representation of the subject matter itself. Some important RS secondary sources are missing altogether and need to be included. Others are misrepresented to a certain degree WP:NPOV WP:ALIVE. I think the root of the problem could be that most sources on the subject are in Korean and potentially difficult to access for the English speaking community. In conjunction with the debate regarding the differing opinions on the group's theology, I am including an example of a source with brief summaries to illustrate just how the deep divide is between the current representations of the subject matter and additional information available. Rather than make this post exceedingly long, you can view additional samples on my sandbox at User:GIOSCali/sandbox
As for misused RS sources, please also see my sandbox page. Potential Compromise While not ideal for the majority of cases, per the exception for religious articles under WP:CRITICISM, I believe the best compromise in this situation is to add a criticism section for this article. Due to the criminal proceedings surrounding the subject, opinions have become exceedingly polarized and would be difficult to integrate. Also, this simple shift in structure would be a natural solution in addressing WP:NPOV phrasing(i.e. one religious leader claims that CGM believes...) Also, sources like those above with relevant information should be added to the article.
GIOSCali (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Read - by the way, to get the ping, you have to do either User:Montanabw or one of the templates: @Montanabw: or @Montanabw: - and then you have to sign the post for it to "go." But don't worry, I also have this page watchlisted. I'll wait until everyone else weighs in before I comment further. Montanabw(talk) 21:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Second Statement by ShiiI see no reason to compromise here. The sources translated on User:GIOSCali/sandbox contain slanderous hearsay, for example "It has been widely publicized in Korea that Do-hyun Kim of EXODUS along with several other leaders of his anti-CGM organizations, extorted Jung Myeong Seok for money". The founder of the group is in prison for raping teenagers, period. There are sufficient English sources attesting to this. Shii (tock) 23:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Pinging @Jim1138: and @PeterDaley72: to weigh in on this case if they still wish to be involved (or at least stop by and say if you are in or out, please). Montanabw(talk) 20:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Second statement by PeterDaley72I'm with Shii on this one. I think the article represents the group well. It could be improved with more newspaper articles like these: http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=040000&biid=2006101884598 http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/07/117_27550.html http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=040000&biid=2008011523598 And more material from last year's Australian TV report which is already included as a source should be included, especially the letters from the leader in jail to the female members which were partially read on air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11K8R8kmwtM And since Do-hyun Kim, the founder of the anti-JMS NGO Exodus was brought up. Can we consider including the violent attack on his elderly father by members of Jeong's cult? http://jmscult.com/forum/index.php?topic=46.0 I've met Do-Hyun and while there is a language barrier, I can get a response from him regarding his earlier mentions. Would that be helpful? One "supportive" article is brought up in the face of scores of critical articles that document criminal convictions, abuses, and violence. I am all for including primary sources as GIOSCali suggested, but the quotes he/she wanted to include from Heaven's Words, My Words, an inhouse booklet published by the group which I also have were cherry-picked. When I suggested including, in addition to her cherry-picked quotes, quotes like "Faithfulness is completing the mission assigned, even unto death," he/she resisted. I thought that a fair compromise. And his/her refusal to accept including that quote a pretty clear indication his/her motives continued the pattern of the group's attempts to whitewash this article. Regarding John Carter's comment: "dissatisfied people, and particularly real opponents, tend to lunge at every camera or reporter they can find. This can in some cases raise questions regarding how reliable the sources of information used by those independent reliable sources are." I would consider myself a "real opponent" of the group as the operator of www.jmscult.com. I'm not sure "lunge" is the right word, but I am always happy to help reporters, which I have and are doing quite regularly - I just finished a 7-page interview last night in fact, and I have appeared on Australian TV in the report referenced in the article. Regarding the reliability of myself as a source, as both GIOSCali and myself mentioned on the talk page, I have several letters from the group alleging copyright infringements. I also have numerous threatening and abusive text messages from the leadership in Korea. The source material I have is certainly legit, hence I was able to identify the stated beliefs GIOSCali wanted to include as attempts to whitewash the article and present an image of the group which is in stark contrast to its inner secret teachings. In my experience with destructive cults former members and critics intimately familiar with the cult in question are often the best sources of information. The recent Going Clear Scientology documentary is another good example. What is wrong with "lunging" at a camera in order to help raise awareness of a dangerous serial rapist? Perhaps a little off topic, there, but I wanted to comment on John's thoughts. PeterDaley72 (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)PeterDaley
Second statement by Jim1138As Shii has stated, the critical information is well sourced. Jung Myung Seok raped many, many underage girls, then fled Korea to avoid prosecution. JMS's guilt in the matter is well-established beyond any doubt. I find it amazing that JMS only received a ten year sentence. JMS's followers seem determined to whitewash the article. There is a long list of SPAs (GIOSCali would appear to be another), socks, and editors banned from editing Wikipedia or Providence. This seems an attempt to WP:CRUSH JMS's critics. As PeterDaley72 pointed out, JMS's followers will go to great lengths, including violence, to silence their critics. This is not an article about a peaceful religious institution. While the article could be improved, removal of information critical to Providence and JMS must be avoided. Breaking out the critical information into a separate section would in effect whitewhash the sections it is removed from and should be avoided. Jim1138 (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Open discussion, round 2OK, I think everyone has now weighed in and I posted some responses to each person's comments with ideas and my preliminary thoughts. It appears to me that the issues can be summed up as follows:
I understand that these "drama boards" can create time-consuming situations. I will not drag this out unnecessarily if folks to resolve their differences. We have no authority to force consensus if consensus cannot be reached. @John Carter:? @GIOSCali:? Any comments? Montanabw(talk) 02:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Key PointsThe argument is not that the majority of content should be removed, nor that the current article fails to use reliable sourcing. The argument is that the current article is incomplete--some important information is missing, and some current sources are being misused in some, not all cases. While editors have addressed some of these points, others have gone unaddressed or have not been met with viable solutions or alternatives. For clarification I have included key points A, B, and C. A. There are important facts missing regarding the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok. Again, these facts having nothing to do with (WP:UNDUE), the phrasing of the article, or the nature of the group.
Again, these are basic facts surrounding the subject, without which the article would be incomplete.
C. There are several sources(not just one) that portray the theology of the group as different from the majority of critical reports. Some of these are on WP:KO/RS, others are not, but could be submitted for verifiability. The one mentioned by user:kiyoweap was indeed a press release but still indicative of the separate theology that members claim-- because a limited number of WP:KO/RS sources are available, alternatives would have to be explored if sources like this are not acceptable(i.e. verifying other Korean articles, etc.) which would take additional time, but may be the best option. If it would help, the articles could be translated for the purposes of this discussion. The core issue still needs to be addressed: with claims about the theology being so polarized, it would seem difficult to integrate the two. Perhaps as John Carter suggested, the best way to structure the article would be from a historical perspective. As for the potential issue with POV, perhaps offering some background information will help. As I mentioned on the talk page, I am a theology student studying modern Christianity, particularly in East Asia. What caught my attention about the CGM was that while Jung was convicted of these crimes, he was only serving a ten year sentence. After some research, I found the article had some gaps in information. This became the basis for these discussions. GIOSCali (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Some of the above might relate to an issue I have at least commented on elsewhere, in reference to specifically Chinese "religious groups" or cults. Specifically, at least to me, particularly in terms of Chinese versions of Christianity, there seems to me to be an unusually frequent occurrence of allegations of sexual misconduct against the leaders. Part of that, of course, could, I suppose, be due to different cultural norms. Another part of it, of course, particularly in China, which has a tendency to dislike anything not under state control, the possibility that at least in some cases it might be a trumped-up charge for the purposes of defamation and discreditation. Unfortunately, I also acknowledge that I as an individual haven't seen any specific sources discussing the possibility of the government either coercing or manufacturing such allegations. Also, I acknowledge that it might be less important in this case than others, unfortunately, because the Unification Church, from which this group split, has faced similar allegations from some otherwise creditable sources, and, at least so far as I can tell as an outsider, I suppose there might be some sort of general views of religion in the East which might make such ideas more prominent there. While I would definitely support development of content, or maybe even a separate article, if possible, about the unusual characteristics of criticism of Christianity in the Far East, from what I can tell anyway, the sources reporting the matters seem as reliable as any others, so that material should be included somewhere. Just a few ideas. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC) OK, so is this summary basically accurate (if a bit oversimplified): GIOSCali wants to add assorted material that is more favorable to the organization that may clarify some things, add nuance, and could give it a more balanced or NPOV look; GIOS also thinks some restructuring would be a good idea. (GIOSCali, you may have an undisclosed COI here, can you clarify your involvement with this organization?) Shii states that the article is already NPOV, the sources in there currently are fine, doesn't want to see the criticisms "ghettoized" into a standalone section, preferring them integrated throughout; Shiii also views the ones proposed by GIOS are not very credible; generally opposing GIOS' proposal. Kiyoweap - who has been doing a lot of actual editing on this article, more than anyone else here, at least lately, feels that the article has improved and that the debate is pretty much moot. The other parties opposed to GIOS' proposal have assorted arguments about source accuracy and potential "whitewashing". But, Jim1138 is sincerely burned out on the issue, and PeterDaley72 has a COI problem in the opposite direction due to running his anti-group web site (This does not prevent him from working on the article, but it does go to his own neutrality). Do I have this stated accurately? If so, I have to say that there appears to be a consensus mostly opposing GIOSCali's suggestions. Does anyone here see anything in GIOS' proposals that could be added to the article? If so, we can continue, but if not, I will not prolong this unnecessarily. Montanabw(talk) 01:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
– I have now inserted into the article an source for B2. Jo Gyeong-suk, former Seoul Branch (already in the article) revealed the messianic salvation doctrine was taught. From The Christian Times newspaper (ko:기독교타임즈). On closer reading, Jo Gyeong-suk is female and says she is one of the victims, so this is not as strong a source as the male leadership confessing to teaching this to their member. Perhaps though that part of the teaching was left strictly to female preachers. For A1, GIOSCali's source was Civil Government monthly. Correction on that. --Kiyoweap (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Closing discussionOK folks, it's pretty clear that the talk page discussion has simply migrated over here and there is a pretty clear 4 or 5 to one consensus against changes. The discussion here keeps coming back to the original issues and not moving forward. So I don't think mediation and DR/N is going to help this any, and I don't want to waste people's time any further here. Therefore, I will refer this case back to the talk page and mark the debate as closed due to failure to reach consensus. This in no way says that anyone is right or wrong, only that you failed to reach an agreement. I want to thank you all for staying on-topic and being respectful both of each other and of the process. Montanabw(talk) 00:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
|
User talk:Kd3qc
![]() | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I'm trying to add reputable information to the page on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and I am being blocked, I think, due to bias. I was a medical library chief at Columbia University/NYSPI, so I'm sure this is high-quality and reputable information from sources that medical librarians respect such as government, NGO, and MEDLINE. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I wrote on his talk page and responded to him to try to resolve dispute when he wrote on mine. He was intellectually aggressive. How do you think we can help? Revert the reversion of 20:11, 17 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+852) . . Multiple chemical sensitivity Summary of dispute by SciencewatcherPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:Kd3qc discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Brown rice
![]() | Premature. Insufficient substantial discussion about the content at the article talk page. The filing editor has raised issues of undue weight, original research, and other issues, but the responding editor has only responded with attacks on the filing editor alleging conflict of interest, which is a conduct matter we don't handle here, and saying, in effect, "I disagree" without actually discussing the issues raised by the filing editor. Let me also carp about neither editor having a registered account: their changing dynamic IP addresses and the fact that the responding editor never signs his posts at all made the talk page discussion far more difficult to puzzle out than it should have been. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview An editor has added content that I feel reads like an impartial op-ed piece. I have placed an "undue weight" tag for the section, and asked the editor to move the content or remove it altogether. I'm new to Wikipedia and our discussion hasn't gotten anywhere. I would like a third-party editor to have a look to be able to resolve the issue. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None. How do you think we can help? The discussion between me and the editor is getting heated. A neutral third-party who can help analyze the situation and offer some guidance would help a lot. Summary of dispute by 24.33.93.239Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 2602:306:C5E1:A830:41A3:38D8:8E5E:384DPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Brown rice discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Sexism
![]() | Administrative close. It is the obligation of the requesting party to list and notify (on their individual talk pages) all other editors substantially involved in the dispute or discussion. Please feel free to relist and do that. The {{subst:drn-talk|Article Title}} — ~~~~ template can be used on those talk pages to give the notices. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I don't really know how this works. I'm sorry. User NeilN is completely stone walling my attempt to improve the lead, and threatening to revert any changes I make. I have more than argued my case. There is some tens of pages of debate. NeilN is caught on a wording of a sentence that is frankly inflammatory and completely not encyclopedic. It has been removed dozens of times. It has been reverted dozens of times. It has been debated dozens of times. NeilN's insistence is not only sexist but heterosexist in an article about sexism. The lead has been tagged as lacking for over a year but apparently no change can be made because of those enforcing its sub-par state. Debate has droned on for far too long. There is no resolution other than intervention by a third party. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Pages of debate. How do you think we can help? Be neutral. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Sexism discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Female infanticide in India
![]() | This question, whether to include an image in an article, is being closed as better suited to an RFC than to moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User:Darkness Shines wishes to illustrate the article with an image despite the fact that it is demonstrably an illustration of a historical situation different from the topic of the article. The article is about "female infanticide" (a well-established, notable topic with respect to India), and the 19th-century drawing is presented to the reader as a matter of course as if it was a straightforward illustration of this topic, but in fact this drawing purports to show a different, unrelated pattern of infanticide, an alleged religious practice of human sacrifice that was not gender-specific but whose victims were children of either sex. DS has brought no arguments against this explanation on the talkpage, but appears to believe (based on some misreading of WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE) that he can use historically unrelated images "for illustrative purposes" just the same [7]. He has reinserted the image at least 6 times, reverting 3 different users (one of them, admittedly, an abusive sock), and his latest reverts appear to show a refusal to engage in constructive discussion or listen to any arguments. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None so far apart from explaining the issue on the talkpage – in fact, I'm doubtful if this should be treated as a content dispute in the first place, as it's more a matter of plain old disruptive editing, but I'd like to give it one more chance here. How do you think we can help? Somebody please point out the obvious to DS: you can't use an image showing situation X and pretend it's an illustration of situation Y. Summary of dispute by Darkness ShinesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Female infanticide in India discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - The statement as to how we can help ("point out the obvious") is not within the scope of this forum. I am neither accepting nor declining the case at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC) 24 hour closing notice: If Darkness Shines does not post a Summary of Dispute by 15:30 UTC on 22 April 2015, this request will be closed as futile. No editor is required to participate in moderated content dispute resolution if they do not care to do so, and Darkness Shines has been active at the encyclopedia since having received notice of this request without participating here, which will be taken as an indication that he does not care to do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
|
Talk:Honorific nicknames_in_popular_music
![]() | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion from both sides of the dispute before seeking assistance. While the requesting editor has made extensive talk page remarks, there has been very little, and even less of substance, from other editors. If other editors will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. You may also consider filing a request for comments which does not have so stringent a discussion requirement as moderated DR. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The article cite above gives credit and prominence to Mr. Paul Whiteman as "King of Jazz". This is attributed to a title conferred to the artist during the America of the 1920's and 30's. In contemporary times, there is a consensus among Jazz artists, fans and critics that this artist did not deserve the title-based on artistic merit. I have submitted my request for this honorific title to be deleted from the Wikipedia page, but it seems there is a lack of compromise and consensus in the talk pages. I now request for Jazz experts, musicians and any other interested party to weigh in on this discussion because it means a lot to me as a Jazz fan and amateur player. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have applied for mediation and it was rejected. How do you think we can help? I request you to host an open discussion on this matter, invite Jazz experts, musicians, critics and such knowledgable parties. I feel that this entry is innacurate and may adversely reflect on Wikipedia's integrity. Summary of dispute by User:SabrebdPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by User:AmortiasPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by User:Martinevans123Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Honorific nicknames_in_popular_music discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Papakha
![]() | Premature. Before a dipute can be brought to the DRN you must have had significant discussion. Take a look at the essay here for more information. -Kharkiv07Talk 17:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The dispute is with Hyrudagon and on my side. There is 3 aspect to this article 1)The word Papakha is an of Turkic Azeri origin, i gave two sources which clearly show, However the user keeps deleting the information citing that it is not reliable while one of the source is a official Russian vocabulary. 2) The user keeps adding Nagorno Karabagh based on a source which is very biased and i discussed with him the issue in talk page, i believe adding the unrecognized territory is against the Wikipedia neutral point of view and if it is the case then all unrecognized territories in Caucasus should be mentioned(Abkhazia, Ossetia, Dagestan and so on)3) While here i do acknowledge my own fault since Andranik for me is a separatist while for the user is national hero i believe again a neutral point should be reached as using his military rank would be more acceptable by both parties. The user has already been warned several times by the me and by one user of his constant Vandalisation however he deleted them from his talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Contacted the user, Warned him, Got an advice from several users on the right way to tackle this problem, got warned by user not to engage in edit war and i decided not to edit but raise the question here! How do you think we can help? 1)The article should include the words origin since it gives the reader a sense where the word is from. The Azerbaijan part should be added since it is worn in Azerbaijan and i showed in more than 5-6 sources.2) Nagrono Karabagh should not be included or in case if its included the political situation should also be included as well other unrecognized territory, 3)Andranik should be mentioned by military rank. Summary of dispute by HyrudagonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Papakha discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
User talk:Krimuk90
![]() | Not an article content dispute. Any ongoing conduct issues can be taken to WP:ANI. Any past conduct issues are in the past. This board is for moderated discussion of article content issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I am Mridul Sharma who was a Wikipedia editor and blocked because of harassing User Krimuk90 or his/her real name is (Redacted). I apologised him/her and he/she didn't forgive for my misbehaviour and called me she in this discussion when talking to Kailash.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Krimuk90/Archive_13. This is the link and then I started abusing and I got blocked. I made another account started editing on my favourite actor Arjun Kapoor's article. Then he/she came to know it was me and again he opened a case against me of the Socket Puppetry investigation. Then it was my fault again made a account and did same number of edits. Then got know while I was pretending to some one and writing on his talk page. He/she opened socket puppet investigation on me and then I abused him and harassed him/her a lot because I got frustrated and made lot of user accounts and ip accounts to harass him/her. This he/she and all the Wikipedia administrators were taking his side and not giving chance to me. Now I realized their is a dispute resolution where we can resolve any matter with any editor. Have you tried to resolve this previously? By writing apology on his/her archive discussion page and he/she was not replying to my sorry.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krimuk90/Archive_15&action=history. You can see the archive discussion history then after he/she didn't reply I started vandalizing all his/her archive pages due anger. How do you think we can help? The dispute will resolved by forgiving me for my rude and abusive behaviour and by removing she in this archive discussion which is directed towards me .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Krimuk90/Archive_13. You can see this link and the title of the discussion is Combat Mridul and also please unblock my username which indefinitely blocked from the encyclopaedia. My username is Mriduls.sharma which is blocked for the reason of personal attacks and harassment. Then please try to resolve it if possible the unblock process. I just want to say that please tell him/her to remove that Combat Mridul message from the Archived 13 talk page discussion. Then the dispute will be fully resolved if he/she remove's the combat Mridul message. Summary of dispute by Krimuk90Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:Krimuk90 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Don Lane_%28Santa_Cruz%29
![]() | Premature, and an administrative close. The filing unregistered editor has not identified any other editors in this dispute. The discussion on the article talk page has not been extensive. The filing unregistered editor is advised to create an account, especially if he or she wishes to engage in productive discussions about articles, especially since IP addresses often change. Please discuss on the article talk page again before coming back here. Other editors should be identified and notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I had posted relevant information and with negotiation with Mr. Lane's Representative (or really Mr. Lane?)adjusted the post. It has stayed unchanged for five months until recently several IPs and Cruzerinthecruz (Mr. Lane himself?)kept changing it to another version with no discussion. Keri flagged my reversion as a 3RR violation and removed my post and locked the edit page out. She also accuses me of having a conflict of interest by claiming that I am an injured party by Mr. Lane's obscene Valentine's. This is not true. It was Lane or Lane's Rep who assumed my identity. I want my original version put back and for it to be locked in. The information I imparted explains why Mr. Lane felt he was being hounded by the press and for what reasons they might have had in exposing him. All with pertinent and reliable references. Finally, Keri assumed much in her "authority" and didn't ask me any questions or for my side. She just took it upon herself to change the article and lock editing. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've asked for editor assistance, used the Article Talk Page, used a bulletin board. How do you think we can help? As explained above. See that I am being forthright, honest, and clear about my intentions along with correct and pertinent information to help impart valuable information. Summary of dispute by nullPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Don Lane_%28Santa_Cruz%29 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Talk:Emina (poem)Filed by Sabahudin9 on 06:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC).
Talk:Misconduct in_the_Philadelphia_Police_DepartmentFiled by PhiladelphiaInjustice on 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC).
|