Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 149
![]() | 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 145 | ← | Archive 147 | Archive 148 | Archive 149 | Archive 150 | Archive 151 | → | Archive 155 |
Talk:Malcolm Wanklyn#Dandolo.2C_.27Avieri-class_destroyer.27.2C_imaginary_submarine_etc.
![]() | Closed as failed before opening. The editors won't stop quarreling. Take the quarreling back to the talk page. Avoid edit-warring, which will result in blocks. Consider a Request for Comments to resolve the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview The page contains some incorrect claims on a few of Malcolm David Wanklyn's achievements. I have corrected said claims, quoting several sources. The author of the page keeps reverting the pages, refusing serious discussion and arbitrarily deeming my sources unreliable or even nonexistant. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried to explain on talk page, but with no result. How do you think we can help? I do not really know. Summary of dispute by Dapi89Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Malcolm Wanklyn#Dandolo.2C_.27Avieri-class_destroyer.27.2C_imaginary_submarine_etc. discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
For Robert McClenon. I am sorry, but I have little patience when provoked. I tried to use this page properly, but Dapi89 immediately turned it into a personal attack. Anyway. I will copy-past the content issue that I had written above so that anyone can read it. In the meanwhile, could you prevent Dapi89 from launching further personal attacks on me on this page? Cancell my replies to him as well. I am fine with that. Now, to the issue. Most of the page about Malcolm David Wanklyn seems to be based on the book "Hero of the Upholder" by Jim Allaway. From what I see, Allaway takes Wanklyn's wartime claims at face value, therey mixing up history and legend. I might as well say that based on what I can read here, his book seems a bit sensationalistic and amateurish to me. But that is a personal opinion. Most submariners from all countries - British, German, American, Japanes, Italian - during that war claimed more ships sunk or damaged than they actually sank, because it was not possible for them to ascertain the exact results of their attacks. Wanklyn was not an exception, and this is more than understandable. The point is, serious historians, postwar, cross-check submariners' claims and enemy records, and find out which ships were actually sunk or damaged. Allaway did not. I have corrected the page, based on actual records that, I repeat, anyone willing to check will be able to. Maybe Uboat.net page, that mentions actual excerpts of Upholder's log, as well as historical research by the meticulous researcher Platon Alexiades, can be considered unreliable (not by me, but again, I am not the only one here who makes decisions). But there are the cited books from the Italian Navy Historical Branch that support what I have written. My claims are:
2) that Upholder did not sink Italian steamer Dandolo in July 1941. She did not disappear to anywhere. She was damaged by Upholder, repaired, and sunk by torpedo bombers in December 1942. Source: Rolando Notarangelo, Gian Paolo Pagano, Navi mercantili perdute, Italian Navy Historical Branch, p. 141. 3) that Upholder sank Italian submarines Ammiraglio Saint Bon and Tricheco, and no other Italian submarines. The claim for a submarine sunk by Upholder in December 1941 is wrong. That submarine, that conveniently is not named in the page, did not disappear to anywhere, because it never existed (or, more simply, was the Italian submarine Settembrini that escaped damage, but that is not reliable, since it comes from the unreliable Uboat.net). Sources: Luigi Castagna, Navi militari perdute, Italian Navy Historical Branch, p. 55; Naval History and Heritage Command list 4) that the Italian merchant Bainsizza was not sunk by Upholder, but by aircraft in October 1941. Sources: Rolando Notarangelo, Gian Paolo Pagano, Navi mercantili perdute, Italian Navy Historical Branch, p. 72; Aldo Cocchia,La difesa del traffico con l'Africa Settentrionale dall'1.10.1941 al 30.9.1942, Italian Navy Historical Branch, pp. 16 to 19. There would be also Uboat.net, but I do not know wheter it would be considered as a reliable source. I invite you all to check what I have stated.--Olonia (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
|
Talk:Electoral system#What_now.3F
![]() | General close. It doesn't appear that the editors here want to discuss article content. An administrator has raised an issue about tendentious editing, and an editor has raised a question (even if groundless) about conduct by an administrator. If there really is a content issue, any two editors can refile here, or a Request for Comments can be used. Before raising any conduct issues, read the boomerang essay, and then take the conduct issue to WP:ANI (or WP:ANEW for edit-warring or Arbitration Enforcement if it is about American voting). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There is a dispute between BrownHairedGirl and Homunq on Talk:Electoral system. Homunq had started an RM proposing the article be moved from Voting system to Voting method; after the RM was resolved moving the article to Electoral system instead, Homunq has continued to discuss the idea of putting some of the article's content at voting method or a similar title, while BrownHairedGirl believes that Homunq's continued discussion of this is illegitimate. Both sides of this debate have support from others on the talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion. How do you think we can help? The reason this needs to bring in outside eyes is the conflict between two individuals, BrownHairedGirl and Homunq; but the issue can be solved without resolving their disagreement, by simply clarifying the status of the underlying content. The question is: did the resolution of the RM foreclose further discussion of whether to create a new sub-article at voting method or voting rule, with a more theoretical bent, to go alongside the electoral system article's more practical bent? Summary of dispute by HomunqI tried to be neutral in the above, so I'm adding a section here to lay out my side briefly. In sum, I feel that BrownHairedGirl's insistence on making this about my behavior, rather than about content, is derailing the discussion. I think that Number 57's engagement has been much more productive; though they're "on BHG's side" and have criticized my actions at times, their main focus has been on the article. I apologize for naming Nealmcb, VoteFair, and Filingpro as parties to this dispute; they clearly have related opinions, but I am not implying that they're acting disputatiously. As for content, I think I made the clearest argument that a split is reasonable when I referred to the "2003 report" (do a page search on the talk page). Homunq (࿓) 11:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by BrownHairedGirlPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The talk page is considering two issues. One is the appropriate content and structure for the article, and the other is Homunq's desire to split out most of the content into a separate article. The first part of the discussion has mostly proceeded well, with for example agreement to move the highly technical "comparison" section to a separate article, retaining only a summary. However, two persistent problems have repeatedly disrupted discussion: a) Homunq posting huge, repetitive walls of text in each discussion section from the RM onwards; and b) Homunq repeatedly raising and re-raising the issue of their desire to split the article. This proposed split has been raised several times without consensus, and in the discussion on my talk page (permalink) Homunq repeatedly insisted that they would raise the issue again and again until there is a consensus. That is clearly a form of forum-shopping or attrition strategy, and progress on developing the article will continue to be impeded until this disruptive editing is curtailed; I have given up on the discussion, because this attrition game is too timewasting. I deplore Homunq's attempt to cast this a two-way personal dispute, since other editors have also asked Homunq to deist. It appears that Homunq may have WP:OWNership issues here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Number 57I don't think we are quite at the DR stage yet. Homunq has been putting forward some annoying unclear and circular suggestions with walls of text, but the discussion about the article (see e.g. here) still seems to be progressing reasonably well. I would suggest he simply engages in that discussion about the development of the current article until we're happy with it, and only then will it be feasible or productive to have a proper discussion about whether another separate article is required (one has already been split off with seemingly unanimous agreement), at which point he can hopefully be a bit clearer about what he thinks needs doing. He just needs to be a bit more patient (barely doing anything else on Wikipedia for the last month except contributing to Talk:Electoral system is probably not helping). Number 57 12:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by NealmcbMy impression of the original MR discussion is that there were 6 or 7 expressing the opinion that voting method, or perhaps voting rule, was the right term for the bulk of the article (homunq, nealmcb, filingpro, smokeyjoe, ajaxsmack, probably votefair, perhaps saintdonut) and 4 who were mostly focused on wanting to change the name to 'Electoral system' (brownhairedgirl, amakuru, Number 57, markbassett). There was consensus that the existing name, voting system, was inappropriate, and that Electoral system was appropriate for some of the thrust of the article, so a move was made. At this point, the rewrite by Number 57 helps create an article more tightly on the Electoral system theme, which I appreciate. My main concern is to find a good name for the more technical material which applies to more than just traditional political elections. I see now that the new Comparison of electoral systems page, which separates out the algorithmic material, retains the "electoral system" name. A better name would be, as supported by the bulk of the sources, and discussed before here with majority support, something like voting method or voting rule or voting algorithm. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by VoteFairI support what I interpret Homunq's assertion to be, which is that "election system" and "voting method" have different meanings. Years ago BrownHairedGirl and I had an unpleasant interaction on another article, so I admit that I am biased against hisher persistent requests for Homunq to back down from his request. I suggest a simple resolution of having two articles, one named "election system" and the other named "voting method" (or, less ambiguously but also less familiar, "vote-counting method"). This is different from Homunq's original request to simply rename the existing single article. For perspective, voting/election methods/systems involve lots of subtle complexities that are mathematics-based, and Wikipedia serves both beginners and experts, so a balance between these extremes is challenging. Yet I'm optimistic that balance can be reached because Number_57, who is rewriting the single article, has been receptive to my suggestions. VoteFair (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by FilingproPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
My understanding is that the RM resolved only to change the name to "electoral systems" and to encapsulate (i.e. move) topics of greater detail to other articles, so how all this happens I think should remain open to discussion. Filingpro (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Talk:Electoral system#What_now.3F discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@BrownHairedGirl:: do you agree that it would be inappropriate for either of us to initiate a sanctions process against the other while this DRN is pending? That is not, of course, a carte blanche for either of us to violate policies; it's just that if we do, somebody else should be the one to bring it up. I believe that this DRN will help resolve our underlying disagreements, and will abide by anything that is decided here; I suspect you probably would say the same. I think you have clearly violated at least one policy, and you think I have clearly violated several; but if it is as clear as we think, then others can be the ones to report the violations. Meanwhile, the DRN will resolve faster and more cleanly if the discussion on the page can proceed without impediment. Homunq (࿓) 00:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
BHG on VoteFair's statementVoteFair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote[2] in their statement that: This surprised me because I had no recollection of any previous encounter with VoteFair, and VoteFair has only 399 edits in nearly 11 years. But none of us has perfect recall, so out of curiosity, I checked with the Editor Interaction Analyser, which reveals no interaction between us on any other topic. The only explanations I can see for this are either that:
Any of us can have a memory lapse, but an editor acting good faith will retract a mistaken assertion. Similarly, if a good faith editor has failed to disclose a doppelganger account, I am sure that they would wish to correct that oversight. Please will VoteFair explain this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
|
List of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_The_Walking_Dead
![]() | Premature. Extensive discussion at the article talk page is required prior to requesting assistance at this noticeboard. There has been one post each by two of the listed parties. Please resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, this case may be filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Somebody just Please do Something about this! Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Ok, Someone keeps on removing the iHorror Awards section for whatever reason. When it is a Real Actual Award Show. Also, they keep on saying that it's spam, when it isn't. So you can you please or someone else put it back on there? And do something about the users that kee on taking it down? Have you tried to resolve this previously? I feel like both of these Users need to get Blocked or atleast get Blocked for 24 Hours. How do you think we can help? I say remove Drmies' Admin Rights. This user keep on abusing their power to block and report people without thinking first and just jumps to conclusions. Summary of dispute by DrmiesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SundyclosePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
List of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_The_Walking_Dead discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
:Talk:Nigel Farage#Reversion of WP:RS edits re his alleged racism whilst at school.|Reversion of WP:RS edits re his alleged racism whilst at school.
![]() | Closed. The filing editor has not provided the required notice to the other editors. Please resume discussion on the article talk page. Another request can be filed here if proper notice is given to all editors. Also, consider a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Two incidents have been removed repeatedly from the page of the UKIP politician Nigel Farage. One, the existence of a published letter from a teacher at his school concerned about his fascism as a pupil (widely published in respected newspapers, verified, and which Farage himself admits seeing), and the other an open letter from a schoolfriend, concerned about the same subject, also published in the broadsheet press. These keep being removed on grounds of "speculation" and "coat racking" even though we've had a long discussion about why they don't fit the criteria for either. The upshot is the page as it exists omits an important and widely known part of the background of this well-known political figure and is I believe less balanced, impartial and fair. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on the Talk page. The incidents keep being removed with little explanation or engagement with the editors who have added them. How do you think we can help? Advise us to whether one or both incidents meet the criteria for inclusion on Nigel Farage's Wikipedia page. Summary of dispute by JRPGPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DaltonCastlePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RoverTheBendInSussexPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by NomoskedasticityPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
:Talk:Nigel Farage#Reversion of WP:RS edits re his alleged racism whilst at school.|Reversion of WP:RS edits re his alleged racism whilst at school. discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Ali Watkins
![]() | General close. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If there are specific questions, consider a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes -- see links below to talk page, subsequent discussion at RS noticeboard, and back at a different section of the talk page here. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview It is unclear from extensive discussion to-date which specific aspect of UNDUE might be in question. The edit in question (clarified below after discussion re RS issues to highlight that the reporter is Pulitzer prize finalist) to the Senate section of the article:
was reverted by SPECIFICO here. References Have you tried to resolve this previously? The revert was followed by 1) discussion on the talk page in a section titled "Reliable media and unnamed sources" then at 2) the RS noticeboard (some discussion had continued at #1), and then 3) back on the talk page in a different section titled with the reporter's name, "Ali Watkins". In sum, SPECIFICO reverted as indicated above. The RS issue turned out, after much discussion, to be a non-issue given the reporter's credentials. General claims of UNDUE been made; but reference to any specific para in UNDUE is lacking despite repeated requests. To facilitate discussion, I can identify a handful of (imo) the most germane posts but, at this point, (again, imo) it would be more helpful if the other invitees could present their arguments below -- with reference to specific paras of UNDUE. How do you think we can help? Encourage invitees to identify, with specificity, any claims in WP:UNDUE, together with statements of relevance to the edit and revert. Summary of dispute by SPECIFICOThis content is undue, newsy, and otherwise inappropriate. When OP met resistance at the article talk page, he jumped to RSN, which affirmed that the case for insertion was weak (although not necessarily due to RS issues). OP then went back to article talk claiming to be vindicated at RSN and again pushing for insertion. It seems to me to be pointless to engage in further discussion on the matter, as consensus is clearly against OP's view. SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC) I don't know how this DR thing works, but it's clear to me that disparagement and misrepresentation of other editors is never helpful, nor is framing content discussions in battleground terms . SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MasemPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have only gotten involved because this came up on the RS/N board (whether the source was reliable, which given the writer's credentials, appears to be), where I did try to point out if this really was appropriate to include at this time given that WP is NOT#NEWS and that we should be looking at including material in the long-term; the type of statement proposed is very much a short-term view that will be unnecessary (most likely) when the larger investigation is closed. I do note that this same mindset should also be applied to that article in general due to ongoing nature of the investigation to include less opinion and rhetoric and staying more to factual events, not intending to single out the one above statement. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Thucydides411Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This particular dispute is just a tiny part of a much larger dispute. From my observations, there are generally two "camps" editing at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. One camp wants the article to detail every alleged connection between Trump and Russia and every form of alleged Russian interference in the US elections, and to present every statement bolstering these claims, with as little mitigating language as possible (for example, see the dispute over whether "alleged" should appear in the title). This camp also wants to exclude, as far as possible, any statements that cast any doubt on claims of Russian interference (for example, there have been disputes over whether Russian denials should even be mentioned in the lede, whether Assange's statements that Russia is not the source of the leaks should be mentioned at all in the article, or whether former US intelligence officials who have expressed doubt about the case against Russia should be mentioned). The other "camp" generally wants some dissenting views included in the article (e.g., Russian denials, Assange's statements, the widely critical reaction among cybersecurity experts to the declassified reports put out by the Obama administration), and doesn't want claims made by US intelligence agencies to be treated as fact. While SPECIFICO is posing this as an issue of the disputed content being too newsy or undue, that's not at all what's at issue. If the issue were the newsiness of the content, then SPECIFICO (and others in the first camp) would probably take issue with most of the content in the article (most of which they added themselves). Most of the article is made up of blow-by-blow accounts of which US official/politician/commentator said what when about alleged Russian interference. The real issue is the content. If I were to try to come up with a predictive model of what edits the "first camp" would object to, I would probably include one factor: does it favor or disfavor the hypothesis that Russia interfered in the election? I'm sorry to be so jaded, but that's pretty obviously what the issue is. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Steve QuinnI took the liberty of pinging everyone at the WP:RSN discussion (final edit linked here) per SPECIFICO and User:Steven Crossin below. I think it has been established at the RSN and the article talk page, WP:NOTNEWS applies to the above content. It is at best a transitional piece. At the same time, it is very weak reporting replete with vague assertions about what might happen, from both Democrats and Republicans. The statement itself is not balanced because the Buzzfeed article quotes a third official saying: "That take isn’t universally held...there’s a lot of room to find something significant. More importantly, I think this needs to be matched to other reliable sources for it to merit inclusion in this article. If this is widely reported in the (mainstream) media then it carries enough weight. If it is not widely reported then it does not carry enough weight. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Ali Watkins discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@SPECIFICO: repeats general statements, so I will not respond. @Masem: Thanks - we can pick it up from here. I take it you are implicitly referring to the WP:BALASP subsection of WP:UNDUE. Is that correct? I appreciate that you are "not intending to single out" this report and agree that much if not the entire article is replete with intermediate claims. As one example, relevant here, see the Links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials section. Also, note subsequent reports by Glenn Greenwald [1] and by NBC [2] confirm these expectations. References
Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Steve Quinn: I'm fine with including third official saying: "That take isn’t universally held...there’s a lot of room to find something significant." Re other reporting, did you see the subsequent reports by Glenn Greenwald ("Key Democratic Officials Now Warning Base Not to Expect Evidence of Trump/Russia Collusion") and by NBC ("Clinton Ally Says Smoke, But No Fire: No Russia-Trump Collusion") mentioned above and linked below? How does WEIGHT apply given that? (I'm ok with including WP:NOTNEWS in the discussion here, but thought it more helpful to focus first on resolving UNDUE b/c as Masem said "It's all on the UNDUE/WEIGHT aspects".) Humanengr (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
|
Talk:Punjab (region)#Amritpal Singh Mann's map
![]() | Closed as failed. It appears that this is a dispute over a map provided by one editor. Two editors have criticized the map, but the editor who provided the map has not responded within 48 hours. Please resume discussion on the article talk page. At this point there appears to be rough consensus against the map. If the editor who has created the map wishes to keep it in the article, a Request for Comments is in order (and a Request for Comments is always a way to determine consensus). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview A few people have an unnecessary problem with the polar orthographic projection of the Punjab region I've created. They seem to think that the Punjabi speaking areas or the Punjab provinces of India and Pakistan is the Punjab region, but when clearly the article's 'Physical geography' portion defines it based on historical, cultural and linguistic lines. See description box of the image for more details: Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've asked them to convince me with a proper argument on why I should remove some areas from the projection. I was not satisfied with their response! How do you think we can help? Help them understand that this is a projection of the Punjab region not the Punjabi speaking areas or Punjab provinces of India and Pakistan. There is more to consider than the current political and lingual situation of the area. Summary of dispute by utcurschPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User:Amritpal Singh Mann has created an inaccurate map, and insists on adding it to the article. When asked for sources, he first presented a list of maps from various books: As I've mentioned on the article's talk page, not even one of these maps validate the accuracy of his map; on the contrary, they clearly prove that his map is wrong. Now, he claims that "the article's 'Physical geography' portion defines it [Punjab] based on historical, cultural and linguistic lines." The most extensive definition of Punjab is given in the "Older 1846-1849 definition" part of this section. First of all, as obvious from the label, it's an obsolete definition. Secondly, even this definition doesn't support the user's map. utcursch | talk 20:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ApuldramThe globe image should not be included in the lede at all, because it is unnecessay and unhelpful. I agree with utcursch and Yohannvt that the globe image is inaccurate and misleading. However, even if a fixed definition of the region were to receive consensus, I would oppose the inclusion of the globe image in the lede, for the reasons given above. Apuldram (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by YohannvtUser:Amritpal Singh Mann has created a map which is misleading the readers of Wikipedia. The biggest issue is the name of the map. My other peers on this page have correctly pointed out different inaccuracies in the image. My point is how can a user give a very generalized name of the image as "Punjab (orthographic projection).svg" while explaining that this is based on the historic definitions of the Sikh Empire (1799-1849) and British Punjab (1849–1947)... In case if his sources are true, then he should name it as "Punjab (orthographic projection)(1799-1947).svg". By giving it a general name as "Punjab (orthographic projection).svg", he is misleading the readers of Wikipedia by making them think that this area as depicted by him is actually the area of Punjab in the current times. This is the actual area of Punjab spread across Punjab, Pakistan & Punjab, India To justify his image,On 14th March 2017, he has intentionally changed all the images of the actual Punjab region to his version of Punjab. Check this edit done by him on Simple English Wikipedia. He has simultaneously changed all the correct images across 40+ Wikipedia languages of the Punjab region to his version on Punjab region on the 14th March , 2017.. Check this Yohannvt (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Talk:Punjab (region)#Amritpal Singh Mann's map discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer's note: I am not "taking" or opening this case for discussion, but only: First, noting that there appears to be sufficient discussion at the article talk page and, second, reminding the listing editor that it is his/her obligation to notify the other listed parties by leaving a notice at their user talk pages. A notice at the article talk page will not, alone, suffice. You may use the notice template noted at the top of this page (and if you've not read the material there, this would be a good time to do it) or leave a custom note on their pages pointing to this page and section. If the other parties have not either weighed in here or been notified by 04:15 UTC on March 17, 2017, this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC) All members involved have been notified. Amritpal Singh Mann (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC) I request Amritpal Singh Mann to remove the word "Unnecessary Problem" in the dispute overview.. i feel the point we picked up is not unnecessary, but justified..Yohannvt (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
First statement by moderatorI will be conducting moderated discussion. Please read the ground rules at User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. Now: Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is? Address your comments to me (the moderator), not to each other. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Also, remember that disruptive editing is subject to discretionary sanctions under the India and Pakistan case, so that is one more reason to be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC) First statements by editors
|
User talk:ChrisChichester
![]() | Closed as conduct dispute. The other editor has been blocked for one week. If the dispute resumes after the blocked editor comes off block, discuss content at the article talk page, Talk:Christian Gerhartsreiter, or report any further conduct issues at WP:ANI, except for sockpuppetry, which may be reported at WP:SPI. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview User:ChrisChichester has added a large amount of information about himself to the Christian Gerhartsreiter, arguing that Gerhartsreiter fraudulently used his name. I reverted, with the edit comment "If this other Christopher Chichester is notable, he should have his own article. Mixing in content to the Gerhartsreiter article isn't the right way to cover him." CC then re-added his edits and more. I explained to him in more detail on his talk page why I found his edits inappropriate, and again reverted. He then sent me a nasty message via Facebook, which I answered on his Talk page (asking him not to contact me off-wiki) and added more material about himself to the Gerhartsreiter page. I have explained the problems with his edits and his behavior to him, and have reverted twice. I don't want to edit war, so I'd appreciate some dispute resolution help here. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have talked to User:ChrisChichester on his Talk page. He has replied once, off-wiki, without addressing any of the WP policy issues. How do you think we can help? Please remind User:ChrisChichester of the various relevant Wikipedia policies and ask him to revert the inappropriate edits on Christian Gerhartsreiter. Summary of dispute by ChrisChichesterPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:ChrisChichester discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
User talk:Bennyben1998
![]() | The dispute is primarily about user conduct not content. Report matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if necessary. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User:Bennyben1998 has edited many articles about South Slavic names (Radovan, Dragoslav, Darko (given name), Vesna (name), Jasna (given name), Vuk (name), etc.) to add the claim that they are Russian and other names, although all (or almost all) the people listed on those pages is South Slavic (i.e., from former Yugoslavia or Bulgaria: Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, or Macedonian). I removed these unsupported claims, including in the Category lists, including an Edit summary explaining why. Bennyben1998 reverted with no explanation, or with edit summaries like "PLEASE JUST LET THIS BE ALREADY!!!". I explained my reasoning on his Talk page, and he deleted my comments. (added later): I also explained myself on the Talk:Darko (given name) page, but Bennyben1998 blanked the Talk page. He continued his behavior, and I brought up the issue again on his talk page. He deleted my comment again, with Edit summary "Leave me alone!" I warned him on his Talk page, and his answer was "I'll finally give you the answer you've been waiting for. I prefer names to be Slavic in general and besides, what I'm doing is none of your business and if it is then tell me how?" I again explained calmly what the issues were, and included a warning. He has not responded. Rather than reverting his changes myself, and restarting this unproductive cycle, I'd like some help from the DRN. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Explained above. Multiple messages on his Talk page. How do you think we can help? Explain Wikipedia content and behavioral policies to the editor and encourage him to revert his unconstructive edits. Summary of dispute by Bennyben1998Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:Bennyben1998 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:KK FMP#Merge_with_KK_FMP_Beograd
![]() | This is a place for moderating disputes not providing opinions. Opinion should be obtained at WP:Requests for comments. Please refile if you believe dispute resolution can help. Thank you. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Conflicting sources about which of the two clubs with the same name is currently playing in the league. Several sources reported the club as being disbanded, while the other sources claims that the club is currently playing in the league. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on local talk page How do you think we can help? Opinion on the content dispute Summary of dispute by BobikPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by BozalegendaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:KK FMP#Merge_with_KK_FMP_Beograd discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Microaggression#Unbalanced 2
![]() | Closed as premature. The filing party has not discussed their concerns on the article talk page. (Also, they have not listed the other editors.) There has been discussion of whether the article is balanced, but not in the past two weeks. Editors should resume discussion on the article talk page before filing here. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Concerns of bias are repeated several times on the talk page. The specific problem of the "criticism" paragraph in the lead is noted, but the concerns are dismissed. I agree the article is unbalanced, but I would hope to avoid an edit war. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have reviewed the edit history of the article and seen that the paragraph has been repeatedly removed and returned. I would remove it, but can only assume it would just be put back again, as has already been happening. How do you think we can help? I would solicit a consensus of what constitutes a balanced perspective for the article, and possibly making the page edit-protected if necessary. Talk:Microaggression#Unbalanced 2 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
![]() | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page back-and-forth discussion before seeking assistance (and discussion through edit summaries will not suffice). If other editors will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I've added information about this studio's co-financing and distribution deals with other studios with the correct, but someone botched it to the oblivion along with the rest of the page, which made me edit war over it with him/her and a couple of other admins, and now it's locked from THREE MONTHS, which is absolutely the worst to happen to the article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've tried my best to convince them in edit summaries and requests that what I was adding is true and that the sources I'm trying to provide are reliable sources. They just don't give a care. How do you think we can help? You need to look at this section at the edit assistance request page and change all the information to the way I want it to be. Summary of dispute by SpshuPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Sro23Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TrivialistPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Toonz
![]() | 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 are made here. The article is not locked to editors who have registered accounts and have autoconfirmed status. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview KAMiKAZOW butchered this article COMPLETELY right after I updated a dead link by re-uploaded the document it links to. He started an edit over between me and him over which information stays and which doesn't, and NOW it's locked FOREVER, which means that no one is able to edit the article anymore. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Can you please use the talk page and this revision to change the page back to the way it used to be and unlock it? How do you think we can help? Can you please use the talk page and this revision to change the page back to the way it used to be and unlock it? Summary of dispute by KAMiKAZOWPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Zweeb101Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by XLinkBotPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by KATMAKROFANPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Sro23Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ShenmePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Toonz discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Dutch letter#Banket
![]() | No objection was raised to resolution and new move request made at article talk page by filer. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There were two articles covering largely the same topic: Banket (food) (a kind of almond pastry), and Dutch letter (banket shaped into letters). It was proposed with general agreement to merge the latter into the former. An uninvolved editor "merged" them, but did so by redirecting the general article to the more specific one (i.e. the wrong way), while not actually copying any content from the blanked article. As a result, straight loaf-shaped banket no longer "exists" in WP's universe; only letter-shaped. Having eaten loaf-shaped banket every Christmas for five decades, I noticed this mistake when I looked for the article about it. I proposed fixing the problem by moving the article to the more general name, while expanding it to also cover both varieties. I created an example of what it might look like in my sandbox. This has been resisted on two fronts: 1) Drmies' argument is that in Dutch "banket" is not the name of a food but more of a generic description of fine pastries. My response – that in English usage it is what this pastry is commonly called, with links to numerous examples of that – was rejected because they were merely recipes and furthermore not "printed". 2) The Banner seems similarly unconvinced that the pastry is called "banket" in the US. Reversing his previous support for a merger, he demands instead that I create a content fork of the merged article, and call it "almond pastry", which itself is not a name, but a description... one which also fits a wide variety of unrelated foods (and Dutch letters). Have you tried to resolve this previously? See Talk page for the "discussion". How do you think we can help? Evaluate the arguments and evidence on these two questions:
Summary of dispute by DrmiesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by The_BannerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
My summery discussion so far:
Thank you. The Banner talk 10:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Talk:Dutch letter#Banket discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I can best restate it by repeating this from above, with the answers that I would propose: Evaluate the arguments and evidence on these two questions:
By the way, you should anticipate a sequel to this dispute, because Drmies has apparently gotten the notion to suggest that Dutch letter be renamed to use his preferred Dutch term instead of the more familiar English. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
If no participant raises any reasonable objection within 24 hours or if all participants agree with this proposal, I'll be willing to mark this issue as resolved. I'd like to thank al all the participants and other DRN volunteers for helping me reach a possible meditation. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: March 29, 2017 at 03:33 (UTC) Reason: decision announced
|
Talk:Hydraulic fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Rationale_for_moving_sections_of_this_article
![]() | not enough related discussion at the talk page. Please note that before filing a dispute here, continuous discussion at the talk page is mandatory. Presently, it seems that all discussion is only sporadic and not continuous under one single header. Moreover, if it's about the conduct of a user, admins notice board is more appropriate. Consider refiling if no consensus is achieved after proper discussion. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview There is a long standing issue with one editor [User:LutherBlissetts] posting huge amounts of material, intimidating other editors, driving them away in Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom Other editors who are experienced are Plazak, Mikenorton, and Beagel. Some of the posts seem designed to remove reliable information from Wikipedia. The topic is a contentious one and needs reliable sources. He is in the process of shifting the focus, removing 100% reliable links from 'Regulation' and 'Public Health' and other edits. There are hundreds of them. He is doing this without any concensus as previous editors do not need the grief he gives to anyone who questions his views. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_3#Lead where he insists on his views over the opinions of 3 editors. I appealed for a collegiate approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_2#Collegiate_approach In fact the other editors do not post now, I assume as they have given up. Please see any recent sections of the talk page. In addition, I was forced to declare a connected contributer status, after I edited info that I was involved with, after flagging up my concerns. I was asked to not edit the page by SarahSV see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#BLP_and_COI This is [WP:BITE] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Friends_of_the_Earth_and_the_ASA.2C_and_editor_kennywpara I am inexperienced in the fine points of Wiki editing but am getting unpleasantness anytime I post. There is no moderation of an editor who has an agenda to present a partisan view not supported by the UK regulatory system, or science. Not helped by the input of Fyldeman, who runs probably the most prolific anti frack website in the UK
Repeated requests for leaving well alone and to justify any significant changes. The disussions are endless and every point is challenged. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Hiding_information How do you think we can help? Please lock the page. Then it needs a calm discussion (which I dont hold out much hope for as I know LB is an antifrack activist from social media) with independent third party. Someone trying to present a false impression should not be editing this page. All I have ever done outside Wiki is to dispute false information. See supportive comment from a very experienced Plazak (2nd one) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kennywpara#Hydraulic_Fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom Summary of dispute by LutherBlissettsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Hydraulic fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Rationale_for_moving_sections_of_this_article discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer#Semi-protected edit request on_3_March_2017
![]() | no relevant discussion found at article talk page. If the discussion has been oversighted then we can't really help, you're better contacting the appropriate oversight team for recovery. The discussion already seems to have reached other forums like editor assistance so we can't take this case. Lastly, we can't restore anything according to your wish. If consensus was against you then you're probably wrong as we don't do anything against the consensus. Thank you Yashovardhan (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview I've added information about this studio's co-financing and distribution deals with other studios with the correct, but someone botched it to the oblivion along with the rest of the page, which made me edit war over it with him/her and a couple of other admins, and now it's locked from THREE MONTHS, which is absolutely the worst to happen to the article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've tried my best to convince them in edit summaries and requests that what I was adding is true and that the sources I'm trying to provide are reliable sources. They just don't give a care. How do you think we can help? You need to look at this section at the edit assistance request page and change all the information to the way I want it to be. Summary of dispute by SpshuPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Sro23Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TrivialistPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer#Semi-protected edit request on_3_March_2017 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Sierra Leone
![]() | no extensive discussion at talk page by either of the parties involved except one. See note below. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The disputed claim is that Bengali is an official language of Sierra Leone (there is a corresponding dispute on the Bengali language page). This claim can be traced back to an article in a Pakistani newspaper from 2002. However, no primary sources that verify this claim have been located, including within publications by the Sierra Leonean government, and no other contemporaneous news articles refer to it. An added concern is that this claim has been repeated numerous times in more recent pieces, many of which reference the Wikipedia article itself. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have reviewed to the sources used by User:Fuadorko2 to back up the claim, but did not find them reliable. I explained by reasoning to Fuadorko2 on the talk page. How do you think we can help? The opinion of an experienced editor on the reliability of the claim and cited sources would likely put a stop to the edit warring. Summary of dispute by Gamesmaster G-9The claim that Bengali is an official language of Sierra Leone seems to stem from a article in a Pakistani newspaper, which reported an official announcement by the then-President of Sierra Leone. The claim was subsequently picked up in other newspapers in Bangladesh and India. However, no contemporaneous reports of this announcement have been located in spite of a comprehensive search. Additionally, no reports have been found in Sierra Leone government publications referring to the Bengali language. However, as this claim has remained on Wikipedia for long stretches of time since least 2012, it has made its way into numerous blogs, articles, and even publications by less reputable groups, making it something of an urban legend. Given the dramatic nature of the claim (a South Asian language being made official in a West African country with almost no speakers of that language!), I believe the standard of evidence should be higher than usual - an official government source, or primary reporting by a reputed publication on the announcement.
Summary of dispute by Fuadorko2 What the people above me has said IS A LIE. There ARE Primary sources, namely many USA university articles. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/4 this is reliable enough under official wikipedia rules. Case should be closed in my favour.
Summary of dispute by DbfirsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Sierra Leone discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut
![]() | not enough extensive discussion on talk page. Consider rfc instead or refile after more discussion. Note that edit summaries are not considered part of the discussion. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Article dispute discussion: Re: Demographics section in Norwalk, CT article cites numbers that do not add up. There are references with vague, or no, citations There are references to statistics that do not exist. There are references to irrelevant statistics. There are references to made-up categories. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Have tried reasoning, giving examples, doing the math, tagging section text to make it easy to correct errors. How do you think we can help? Maybe, giving some advice or direction for how to write articles or sections using statistics, numbers, categories etc. in a manner that clarifies without interpreting, or skewing, statistics in such a manner that will enable a reader to better understand their purpose. Thank you Summary of dispute by JJBersPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ɱPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:German Brazilians
![]() | not enough extensive discussion on talk page in recent past. Please resume discussion on talk page as suggested by Robert McClenon below. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview User:Thomas.W added two non-Brazilian sources that claimed that the 2000 Brazilian censuses found that 12 million Brazilians claimed German ancestry. He removed the previous source that provided a different figure, 5 million. The point is: the 2000 Brazilian census DID NOT ask about German ancestry. This theory started in Wikipedia, by IP numbers. I have been reverting them for years, but their theory about the census was spread to other websites and is not back to the article disguised as "reliable source". I asked User:Thomas.W to show where in the Brazilian census they asked about German ancestry, but he said he would not look for it. Me and another Brazilian user, User:Grenzer22, warned that the Brazilian census did not ask about German ancestry and then those sources are wrong. However, User:Thomas.W and User:Iryna Harpy, who happens to be an administrator, are ignoring our advices and are doing everything to keep the wrong figure in the article. I have included three other reliable (Brazilian) sources that found figures between 3.6 and 7.2 million Brazilians of German descent, including one from Simon Schwartzman, who was the president of IBGE, responsable for the Brazilian census (he found the 3.6% figure). However, User:Iryna Harpy removed all my sources, based on illogical and silly arguments. Another user, including User:Roger 8 Roger and User:Ayazid, also asked both Iryna Harpy and Thomas.W to show us where in the Brazilian census we can find the German figure, but they said they would not do it. They are also using a touristic propaganda published in London as a "source" for the 12 million figure. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I opened a Dispute resolution in the past, but it was ignored How do you think we can help? Make Iryna show us where in the Brazilian census it was asked about German ancestry or remove the wrong information now. Summary of dispute by Roger 8 RogerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Grenzer22Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Iryna HarpyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Thomas.WPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by AyazidPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:German Brazilians discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:British Somaliland
![]() | not enough extensive discussion on talk page. Moreover, last discussion was in February. Resume discussion on talk page or approach WP:RFC. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The issue is about a notable individual of British Somaliland. Who was part of the 4 signatories that signed the independence of the protectorate, Haji Ibrahim Nur. He was also a notable merchant and minister of the British Somaliland protectorate. Being a minister and one of the main individuals signing the independence papers makes him notable enough for the British Somaliland page. Although the user Kzl55 argues against it simply, because he is from the Isaaq clan who are the majority in borders of the British protectorate and the current Somaliland and he is discriminating based on clan lines. You can check his contribution history for proof of his biased nature. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have discussed this on the Talk Page. How do you think we can help? By drawing a conclusion. Summary of dispute by Kzl55Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:British Somaliland discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Balija#Kavarai
![]() | An SPI has been filed by one of the involved parties against the filer. The case is, hence, no longer under the jurisdiction of the DRN. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Kautilya3 insists on having this statement in intro: In Tamil Nadu, the Balija merchants are called Kavarai (Gavara).[1][2][dubious – discuss]
Issue: Outcome expected: Have you tried to resolve this previously? (1) Tried resolving this with Kautilya3 and Sitush on Balija talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balija#Kavarai (2) Tried resolving this with Sitush on his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#Balija_.2F_Gavara (3) Tried resolving this with Kautilya3 on his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kautilya3#your_sources
Please help take a call --- to move the statement from intro to branches. See synopsis of issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balija#synopsis Summary of dispute by Kautilya3Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The Balijas are a caste group in the Telugu-speaking areas of India. However, during the medieval times, they settled in large numbers in the Tamil-speaking areas, where, according to sources, they came to be called Kavarai (which is the Tamil rendering of the Telugu word Gavara). The line in the lead states that. Anon=us agrees with this[4]: " Yashovardhan, I think this was roughly the version of the article when this case was opened. It shows the disputed sentence in the lead. I would also that I am not willing to engage in an unstructured discussion here, because such discussion has already happened on the talk page and it has not been productive. I will wait for you to open the sections for structured discussion in the normal way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by SitushAs I said here, I am not understanding what this dispute is about. Anon=us keeps bringing up inappropriate sources and making leaps into what appears to be original research in an attempt to clarify their point but it remains a mystery to me. All they need to do is produce one reliable source that explains it clearly. I really do think this is a problem related primarily to communication difficulties. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Talk:Balija#Kavarai discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@Kautilya3: (1) You say: "Balijas are a caste group in the Telugu-speaking areas" --- Wrong, it is a social group created in 2 ways. (1) One as traders before Krishnadevaraya. (2) Next as group of fighters collected from various castes under the cover-title Balija during the time of Krishnadevaraya. (2) You say: "..settled in large numbers in the Tamil-speaking areas..they came to be called Kavarai (which is the Tamil rendering of the Telugu word Gavara)."----- Wrong. This is your own hypothesis. How can all of them be from Kavara/Gavara subcaste? Also, who said Gavara is a Telugu word? (3) You are selectively quoting. Very bad to see this Kautilya. Read this carefully (see part in italics): "Balija and gavara/kavarai is used interchangeably among Tamil speakers socially (because Kavarais (viz Gavara-Balija) were dominant merchants. Note: I said Gavara-Balija. Not other castes/subcastes from the social group. (4) Why not take my whole post into account. I said Kautilya3 does not get the regional peculiarity. Gavara is rendered Kavarai in Tamil BUT the Balija social group is an umbrella term for many more subcastes. (5) Writing what you want: This sentence should not be in the lead because "Gavara/Kavarai is a Subcaste of Balija and all balijas in Tamilnadu do not belong to just one subcaste" - Already said that 100 times. You want it said again. (6) You cannot put this in the lead. Everyone in tamilnadu knows Gavara is both naidu and chetty (meaning, part of balija and komati (respectively). If anyone wants to search for Gavara/Kavarai, there is already a page for it in Gavara. Just elaborate there that Gavara is a subcaste of Balija and of Komatis. --Anon=us (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us
clarification by filerHello. As mentioned above Kautilya3 wants to put this sentence in the introduction. After discussion, Sitush moved it under branches (which is what I requested from DRN). But now Kautilya3 is back again, asking for the sentence to be put back in intro (in the lead) --
sourcesFrom the 2 sources Kautilya3 gave (Francis and Mukund), Sitush agrees Francis source cannot be used. Mukund source does not provide reference for his claim. As of now, Sitush has already removed the sentence from the intro and moved it under branches. I expect it will remain so. But Kautilya is contending it. He wants it back in the lead. Hence, as the admin, please take the call. Here are my sources opposing Kautilya's view: (1) Subrahmanyam and Shulman, p.74 say --- These left-Sudra groups — often referred to by the cover-title 'Balija', but also including Boyas, left-hand Gollas, Gavaras, and others — were first mobilized politically by Krishnadevaraya in the Vijayanagara heyday --- This shows fighters collected from various castes during Krishnadevaraya's time came under cover-title Balija. (2) This Niels Brimnes source (p.106) says: "The Kavarais were Tamilized Balija Chettis of Telugu origin, returned in the census as 'Wadugas' or Northerners"". Page 189 says "..were headed by Tamilized Balijas known as Kavarais". ---- This shows Gavara/Kavarais are part of Balija social group (who became tamilized). (3) This PRG Mathur source(p.341) says on migration into Kerala that, "Balija community, with two sub-divisions, Gajalu Balija and Gavara Balija, migrated originally from Tamil Nadu" -- This shows Gavara/Kavarai are a subcaste of Balija social group". (4) Finally, Tamilnadu Government List recognizes Gavara/Gavarai is a separate caste from Balija (ie., subcaste). It is not possible to say Balijas in Tamilnadu are called Gavara/Kavarai because (1) Gavara/Kavarai is a subcaste of Balija, (2) All balijas in whole of tamilnadu do not belong to just one Gavara/Kavarai subcaste. --Anon=us (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us
Arguments against fileras filer has already provided clarification along with one other editor involved. Please provide arguments with valid sources, citing policies and guidelines against filer here.Yashovardhan (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC) As I mentioned, the filer has accepted the statement in the lead in his own words. Now, he seems to want to retract it for reasons unknown. Coming to his explanation of why he wants the line deleted from the lead, From the filer's point of view, it might be wrong for the Tamilians to use such terminology. But, that would be WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX. We are not here to decide right and wrong. If he believes the statement misleadingly suggests that all Balijas in Tamilnadu belong to the Gavara/Kavarai subcaste, a footnote can be added with a disclaimer. It could also be explained in the body of the article. To the best of my knowledge, the statement in the lead is factual and accurate, and it is an important piece of terminological information that needs to be presented there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC) In response to Kautilya's noteNote on references: When a person cannot understand nuances, continues to misunderstand, claims the filer (me) "accepted statement", then it proves the person is incapable of understanding the regional peculiarity. Kautilya is asking for sources which say Kavarai/Gavara is a subcaste. Above sources already do; including source (2) and (3) which suffice for what he seeks. If he still has an issue he can file a petition against source (4) (which is the state government) challenging their classification. If I pile up references, this would move nowhere. First let Kautilya refute existing references. Thanks. Additionally: let Kautilya present his sources, so their reliability can be verified. Note, Sitush already explained Francis source cannot be used. Mukund source can be presented for examination. Also request Kautilya not to assume what I might think is wrong. Kindly restrict argument to veracity of sources. Bringing to admin notice -- This was written to Kautilya in Jan 2017, providing sources. He did not reply back then. Now, let him argue against those sources too. --Anon=us (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us Arguments supporting filerIf you agree with the filer, please mention it here along with citing valid policies, guidelines and sources as necessary. Yashovardhan (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Other discussion
@Anon=us: no issues! On the other hand it's really important for anyone who is going to remain off for more than a day to inform others as well at DRN. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Arguments against filer: Sources for the lead statementI have been asked to provide sources for the sentence in the lead. Not sure why this is being asked, because the sources have been there in the article for quite a while.
The references are unanimous that all Balijas in Tamilnadu engaged in trading are called Kavarai. The exceptions might have been the non-trading warrior classes, who were pretty much gone by mid 19th century. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
response to Kautilys's note aboveHello, Yashovarshan, quick note. Firstly, all of Kautilya's sources refer to the Gavara/Kavarai section. He claims it is a "Superclass". Whatever that means, It is not for him to decide or create terms. He is doing WP:OR. Superclass is just subdivision. Some of his own sources state subdivision, wish he numbered his sources to make it easier. He really fails to understand the regional peculiarity. I request Kautilya to refute the sources I have given, which state they are a separate subdivision or subcaste. Rao & Subrahmanyam source (Symbols of substance book) mention how the social group was formed by collapsing traders and fighters (gathered from different castes by Krishnadevaraya during Vijayanagar period) into one group under a cover-title Balija. Additionally, changes happened with Kavarais registering into Madras Army as Tamils; after TElugus were barred from joining Madras Army as per 1890 GO of British Government (as detailed in my talk page). Finally, if he is going to prove all Balijas are Kavarai/Kavara/Gavara in Tamilnadu, then lot of people will thank him. Since only Gavara/Gavarai/Kavarai (other than Balija) get reservations. Everyone can start claiming they are Gavara/Gavarai/Kavarai. Thanks to the fact that wiki sources can be used to contest elsewhere too. Thankyou. Addition: Kautilya claims "non-trading warrior classes, who were pretty much gone by mid 19th century". How many warrior classes exist in the same feudal setup (as "warrior classes") in India today? All are gone. Does that mean they do not use subcaste divisions socially? Sorry, but Kautilya is bent on trying to prove things which do not apply; with tendency to assume, selectively quote and create superclasses! For further discussion, will be back after a day. Am really sorry internet access will be difficult to have until 5th Apr evening. Hope, these notes now suffice. --Anon=us (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us Volunteer's note
|
Talk:Day Without_a_Woman#Organizers.3F
![]() | Closed as apparently abandoned. If two or more editors wish to have moderated discussion, they may re-open a case here, and I would suggest that they ping User:Mark Miller, who has offered to mediate. For now, closing this. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There is a dispute whether and how to include the information that one of the Day Without a Woman event organizers was convicted of terrorism. A further complication is that one of the cited sources for this information apparently calls into question whether or not this person was actually an organizer of the event. There is also a dispute over whether or not consensus has been reached regarding the inclusion of this information Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on the article talk page. How do you think we can help? Help decide whether consensus has been reached, and whether including this information is in line with Wikipedia policies, BLP in particular. Summary of dispute by E.M.GregoryPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
A straightforward matter of a widely-covered aspect of a political protest (the fact that one of the protest leaders was convicted of participating in the 1969 PFLP bombings in Jerusalem. To me, it seems clear that coverage of this fact is sufficient to merit inclusion in this brief article. Some of the coverage is detailed on talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Sir JosephA person helped in the organization of the strike. This person is being identified and there is absolutely no reason not to include that she's a convicted terrorist. Simple as that.Sir Joseph (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by TagishsimonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by HennesseyvebssIn my opinion it is not an issue of whether the individual is listed as an organizer. The issue is characterizing the individual as a "convicted terrorist" in a 40 year old completely unrelated matter is an obvious way to color the article, and the Day Without a Woman event, as somehow a fringe, terrorist-related event. In my opinion, it is a NPOV issue and the "convicted terrorist" part should not be included on this page.Hennesseyvebss (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MegalibrarygirlPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
We were having a discussion about whether we should add the information about the organizers and their names. One of the alleged organizers, Rasmea Yousef Odeh is a convicted terrorist, although there are also sources that say she claims it was a false confession. Adding the info was considered a potential BLP violation by some editors. However, there is another issue: and that is whether she was one of the planners or was just a vocal supporter. I just went back through the sources and here's what I've found: The source originally used to add Odeh by Haaretz states she wasn't one of the organizers at all. The official website doesn't list her either. However, other reliable sources do discuss her as an organizer, though many of these are a reaction to this article, which is a letter of support for the strike in the Guardian where she (and other women) call on feminists to mobilize on March 8. But the Guardian letter doesn't explicitly say she (or Angela Davis who is now listed in the Women's March article) were part of the planning and a link to her profile does not state she is part of the Women's March. Because of this letter to the Guardian, sources like Fox News, and Snopes make it clear that this is their source for describing her as one of the planners of the Women's March. The letter to the Guardian only asks for feminists to take part in the march. It doesn't state that the writers are planners. I propose that if she's added at all, it be done so under a controversy section since it's not clear that she was a planner or just a supporter. The idea that she was a planner did cause controversy. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Doom777The real issue behind having or not having "Organizers" section, is Rasmea Odeh. She is a convicted terrorist, and if she is an organizer of the march, it would hurt the march's image in view of many. As wikipedia editors, we're to be neutral. We're also not to judge whether or not she was an organizer, but rather if second sources consider her as such. There are a dozen sources saying she was. There is also at least one saying she wasn't, and the march's website doesn't mention her. I think that we should list the organizers of the meeting, not in a special "organizers" section, and not in a controversy section, but just insert it somewhere where it fits, maybe in the head section. The organizers should be listed in order of imprortance, so maybe Linda Sarsour should be first, however Rasmea Odeh should also be mentioned as an organizer, since there are so many dependable secondary sources that include her. I don't think that Rasmea's terrorism conviction should be mentioned in the 'organizers' list. I think maybe there is a place for a Controversy section too, and Rasmea's involvement should be mentioned as one of the controversies, again, only because there are many secondary sources writing about it, and it is notable Summary of dispute by Another BelieverPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have worked on the article some but have not followed this discussion closely and don't plan on getting involved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Talk:Day Without_a_Woman#Organizers.3F discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Sierra Leone
![]() | Administrative close for several reasons. There are several problems with this filing. First, the discussion on the article talk page has still been inadequate. There has been some discussion since the previous close, but not much. Second, the list of editors is not a correct list. While two of the editors have discussed the matter on the talk page, one not only has not discussed it but is blocked. An administrator who is listed does not appear to have discussed the case. One editor who has discussed the matter is not listed. Third, the filing party has not attempted to notify the other editors. Please resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here, with a proper list of editors, and with notice to the editors. Take any questions about this closure to this project's talk page. Take further discussion of content back to the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Bengali is reported as an official language of Sierra Leone, in addition to English, according to many sources on the internet, including but not limited to, mainstream newspaper articles, top USA universities such as New York University, and law handbooks. (The sources can are listed in the talk page section 'Official Language'.) (The discussion also continues in a number of other sections on the same talk page, see the table of contents at top of talk page). Despite the overwhelming evidence, which according to Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/4 ) is credible enough, there are admins on the page who consistently reject Bengali as an official language of Sierra Leone, because they cannot find an official source from the Sierra Leone government itself. The problem is that the Sierra Leone government does not even have a source saying that English is the official language, but they accept that English is official based on sources that are NOT the Sierra Leone government, which is inconsistent. Basically the admins on the page are okay with the lack of documentation from the Sierra Leone government regarding English being official, but when it comes to Bengali, they are not okay. They are unfairly denying Bengali as an official language and they are not being consistent with regards to both Wikipedia guidelines and also relative consistency with the English case.
Enforce WP rules! Below are some of the sources that state both English and Bengali as the only official Languages of Sierra Leone: Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page arguments. Edit wars. Article Protection. Account/IP blocking. It got pretty ugly. How do you think we can help? Put Bengali as official language based on evidence on Sierra Leone page and also on Bengali language page. Summary of dispute by DbfirsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Gamesmaster G-9.Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Sierra Leone discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Iranian presidential_election,_2017
![]() | primarily appears to be about user conduct. Case resolved at talk page as per filer. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Hello, We have an user (TheSimorgh) who constantly adds an unsourced individual, as a candidate for the Iranian presidential election 2017. This user claims that this individual has founded a political group related to Iran. Two other editors (myself and Pahlevun) removed multiple times the said individual from this page, considering the information to be unsourced, and unreliable (and as for myself, as some sort of hoax/scam). Please read the talk page to see the arguments from both side, and the edit page to see Pahlevun arguments. I tried to open a mediation, but it seems the link was blocked by administrators (while the page itself isn't, which means that we'll all continue to edit the page). Thanks for your help. Cheers EDIT: the case have been solved by [[User talk:Jupitus Smart|Jupitus Smart]. I have also noticed to the two users the presence of this specific page, as requested.Reza Fariborz (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried to open a ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation ) mediation for this page, but the link didn't worked. How do you think we can help? By asking user TheSimorgh to stop adding content to this page, unless proven by valid (and various) secondary sources. Summary of dispute by PahlevunPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TheSimorghPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Iranian presidential_election,_2017 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|