Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 64
![]() | 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 60 | ← | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
Francesca Hogi
![]() | Resolved by closing of AFD as "no consensus." — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
The article's eligibility has been discussed on the AFD page Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Article was nominated for deletion a week ago and was closed today. However, the closure has been disputed by Frietjes (talk · contribs) and I am filing this in case she feels the article is notable. I suspect this user may be Francesca herself trying to keep her own article or an avid Survivor fan trying to keep the article in spite of consensus that the article fails notability standards Have you tried to resolve this previously? We redirected the article to a list of all the contestants but we know this user will attempt to reopen the WP:AFD discussion How do you think we can help? Explain to this user that not all people are notable enough to have their own articles and that anonymous IP voters are entitled to share their opinion as much as logged in users are Opening comments by FreitjesPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Francesca Hogi discussionHi, I'm Carrie, and I'm a DRN volunteer.
The AfD was closed as no consensus - the previous closures did not meet the criteria in WP:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures, so the final closure by an administrator should stand - so the article should not be redireced unless a future discussion results in a consensus to do so (the closing comments included a suggestion that the article be relisted in a month's time, so if you still feel it should be redirected, I suggest you wait and do that). CarrieVS (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Hurricane Kira
![]() | AFD discussions are determined at that venue, not elsewhere. Per the instructions here, this noticeboard is not for disputes pending in other venues. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Users and anonymous IP addresses wheel warring of closure of this discussion Have you tried to resolve this previously? Decide whether or not the discussion should continue. There is no consensus to keep or delete How do you think we can help? Reach a conclusion that everyone can agree on Opening comments by GB fanThis dispute is real simple. An IP closed the AFD as no-consensus after it had been open for only ~3 days and 11 hours. This is less than 1/2 the normal 7 day period for an AFD. I reopened it and multiple different IP addresses have reclosed it. The essay on non-admin closures discusses when it is appropriate for non-admins to close AFDs. It says that non-admins can close AFDs that have run for the full seven days as no-consensus if there is little or no discussion. This AFD is seeing quite a bit of discussion and it was ongoing at the time of closure. The IP stated in their filing of this dispute that they had tried discussing this on a talk page. They do not specify what talk page, the AFD talk page is still a redlink and there is no discussion on the article's talk page. I see no reason for dispute resolution at this time. There is only one answer to this dispute, let the AFD run for seven days and then an uninvolved admin can close the AFD as they read the consensus. GB fan 19:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Peter JamesPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by WhpqPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Kira discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Lists of tropical cyclone names
![]() | Filed by blocked sockpuppet; block evasion; investigation is here. Also stale. If remaining editors wish to continue, please refile. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Every six years the national weather service uses the same names for hurricanes and typhoons with a few exceptions. We've attempted to turn over the 2012 list a few times given 2012 season has officially ended. But two users have been persisantly disputing the changes claiming it was original research. In addition they keep intentially spelling the names wrong. Each time we correct they keep reverting to the version with many names poorly spelled Have you tried to resolve this previously? We've explained the 2012 season is over but they've insisted their changes are right and that every year anew set of names is created each year. How do you think we can help? Come up with a compromise Opening comments by HurricanehinkPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
[1] - the National Hurricane Center has not updated the list for 2018 yet, and the names that were there are correct. I protected the page since the anon kept changin be names incorrectly (like Bret to Brett). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Jason ReesPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Our list of tropical cyclone names is imo the most accurate list of tropical cyclone names around as it trumps the WMO list of names and we do not add the list of names until we have a source telling us what the names are. While it is true that the names for the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific hurricane seasons rotate every six years, it could be that the WMO decides to add a new list of names or completely change the naming scheme like they did in 2008 with the Australian region list of names. It is also worth noting that the IP is changing the names to what they think is the correct spelling of the name rather than what is the official spelling of the name. I oppose any addition of the names for 2018 until the lists are put out by the NHC/WMO due to the rules on Original Research.Jason Rees (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Lists of tropical cyclone names discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Who filed this?Who is 174.226.4.31? — nerdfighter(academy) 21:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC) CompromiseWould you consider adding the rotated 2012 names for 2018, under a description stating something like "The following names are predicted based on WMO's system of repeating hurricane names every 6 years". The description probable needs some clean up, but would either of you be ok with that? — nerdfighter(academy) 21:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Carrie; I'm a DRN volunteer. This doesn't mean I have any special privileges or the power to enforce any decisions, but I will try and help you come to an agreement. I have a couple of questions:
We seem to only have one side of the dispute participating. I'm going to give this 24 hours more, and if there's no response from IP 174... after that time, I will close this case. CarrieVS (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
|
List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes
![]() | Filed by blocked sockpuppet. Investigation report is here. If remaining editors wish to continue (which I don't think that they will), please refile. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Article is an episode list of a live action TV show. Content dispute is on the summaries of the first four episodes (or the fifth summary) since Favre1fan93 keeps adding his own version even though this episode has not yet aired. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I removed any futures summaries that may be considered "original research" telling Ryulong to act civilly How do you think we can help? Users should respect others and not dismiss every edit they don't agree with as "original research" Opening comments by Ryulong
Again, no attempt was made at resolving this on the talk page and Senor Taichi is just trying to slog everything through Wikimedia process for no reason (he was the IP who previously posted here concerning a line that I removed from the page).—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Favre1fan93Ugh. Okay. So basically everything that Ryulong said is what I would have said here in some extent. As Senor Taichi stated above that we should "not dismiss every edit [we] don't agree with as "original research" ", the only reason he was being dismissed so many times, as Ryulong said, was because his edits were OR. Before his edits, I add added new episode titles that were sourced by Zap2It as well as one future episode summary (more on this in a bit). Senor Taichi went on to change a properly sourced title to one that he could not provide a new, valid source for, saying that his version was right and not OR. As for the future episode summary, the title source (usually from a press release), can be used as a guideline for the short summary. However, you can not copy word-for-word, as Senor Taichi did, less it be WP:COPYVIO. The summary must express what the episode will be about, with out using the exact words from the source. The official short summary is: "[redacted, view here]" while the one added is "The Warstar monster Beezara uses her powers to turn Gia and Emma against each other and the boys into her loyal drones." Just a simple sentence or two to say what the episode will be about before a more lengthy summary can be added after it airs. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC) List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
View by Nerdfighter
|
Bloomex
![]() | Not suitable for DRN. There is a clear consensus and COI going on here. If the individuals would like less negative content in the article then they should focus on adding more positive not removing sourced criticisms. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Dimitri Lokhonia on 23:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this 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 editor CliffC and Gwickwire are editing the article showing the company and myself in very negative way. Any sizable business has unhappy customers. We are arguing that because of time in the business, size and geography served all these " controvery complaints should be considered as WP:UNDUE. The other issue the above metioned editors are not allowing to show the real size of operation in Canada, USA and Australia presenting company like a shady operations. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I requested to remove article 2 years ago, but request was denied How do you think we can help? the best resolution will be to remove article from Wikipedia. Opening comments by CliffCPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by gwickwirePlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
I will refuse to participate in this discussion as the opening user will not listen to us at all, much less take anything that we say as true unless it is exactly what he wants. I apologize to DRN for having this come here. Also, there has not been the extensive talkpage/other discussion necessary between the OP and me and Clif to have this open. As such, I am also closing this request, in my capacity as a volunteer. gwickwiretalkediting 23:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Bloomex discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
This case is unsuitable for DRN at this time. The OP has not returned to the talkpage of the article after asking for changes to be made. After further discussion, and more willingness from the OP to accept the decisions he has been given instead of immediately escalating it, this may be suitable. Please note this is in no way supposed to be a way to get this to close immediately, and is purely in my capacity as a volunteer at the DRN. gwickwiretalkediting 23:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
|
Talk page of Culture of India
![]() | This dispute is about the content of a source and whether or not it backs up statements in the article. We have a dedicated board for that over at WP:RSN. I suggest the filing editor take this dispute over there for now. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by 213.243.188.203 on 06:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The issue is original research in the 2nd paragraph of the lede section. I agree with the other party that Indian culture is very diverse, and the main article provides ample support for this view. The issue: The user Dravidianhero has injected into the lede, his opinions on "why" and how many such cultural variations exist. The sources he just cited, do not support the sweeping conclusions such as "evolved mainly..." and "largely independent of foreign...". The cited sources additionally do not support the claim in the lede's 2nd para of "two major subcultural variations". The main article has no discussion about this either. Dravidianhero claims the content he added is very well backed by the sources he added over the last few days. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None other than the discussion on the talk page. How do you think we can help? I would appreciate if the community members can check the sources in the 2nd para of the lede, and advise if they back the following: [1] There are "two" major subcultural variations within India [2] Why these variations "mainly evolved" [3] Whether the culture of South India developed largely independent of foreign influences Opening comments by DravidianheroPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk page of Culture of India discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
List of wars involving the People's Republic of China
![]() | Not enough previous discussion. Dispute is only 12 hours old. I suggest further discussion on the talk page and WP:3O as the next point of call. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 13:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Capitals00 on 12:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Here's the edit, that i want to be there:- As it's clear, that Soviet Union's troops were involved in Korean War. And the wars like Chola incident, Sino-Soviet border conflict should be considered as well. But a person is reverting these edits by calling "they are not wars". As per this page :- Template:PRC_conflicts, only those wars have been included by this person, where China wasn't defeat, or led to ceasefire. Thus the page sounds to be one-sided. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Yes, i made one revert, but he seems to be very one sided. How do you think we can help? We will have to keep the information, as that page seems to be very pro china, not neutral. Opening comments by BenlisquarePlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
At of present, Dispute Resolution is unnecessary, as the discussion hasn't even progressed beyond 12 hours yet. There is no need to be hasty; this article is on the watchlist of many people, and eventually more opinions will be gathered. I believe that the consensus-building process has yet to finalize. Give it at least a day; WP:DR is not meant to be a first-resort babysitting feature when things such as WP:3O or WP:RFC haven't even been used yet. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC) List of_wars_involving_the_People's_Republic_of_China discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi
![]() | The two pages listed in this filing under "Location of dispute" have redlinked talk pages (red meaning nothing is there). DRN is not a substitute for article talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. If this dispute concerns some other page that wasn't listed, feel free to re-file with the proper page listed. Guy Macon (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Christian1985 on 16:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview A few days ago I removed a controversial and I feel rather biased section entitled "Class". Baroness Warsi the subject of the article is from a working class background but the controversial section is basically a POV/OR section basically trying to contradict this by making ridiculous statements like "she claims this because her father was a mill worker but is now multi-millionaire" then goes on about her being a lawyer and being in an exclusive members club etc etc. All blatant smear attempts at trying to say "she's not working class, here's the proof". I feel the section is biased, POV with elements of OR and inappropriate and I argue it should be left out. A 3O editor has backed me on this but the opposing editor feels this is not sufficient and keeps reposting the controversial edit. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have sought a Third Opinion which has been provided and does actually agree with my stance in the dispute but the other editor feels this alone is not sufficient for the controversial content to be omitted from the article. He would like a "second opinion" on the 3O How do you think we can help? I think the best thing to do would be provide another independent opinion on the dispute. Thank you for your help. Opening comments by GorgeCustersSabrePlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Apple Computer's 1997 Financial Rescue
![]() | Lack of participation. Closed after 72 hour warning/request to engage. Kicking back to talkpage and suggest RFC.Amadscientist (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Filed by Pdunbarny on 13:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview The Wikipedia article's statement that "Jobs brought Apple from near bankruptcy to profitability by 1998." is based on the subject's, Steven Paul "Steve" Jobs, own claims ("We [Apple] were 90 days from going bankrupt.") and is not supported by facts other than those referencing the subject's claims thus making the subject the primary source of the statement posed as fact. In addition the claim has a very high probability of being a false statement based on supporting evidence to the contrary provided in the talk pages linked, including the referenced article and linked US government documents filed by the company, Apple Computer, Inc. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Satisfactory evidence suggesting the article's statement ("Jobs brought Apple from near bankruptcy to profitability by 1998.") relies on the claim under dispute that was made by the subject ("We [Apple] were 90 days from going bankrupt.") that evidence shows it not likely correct, has been provided on the talk page. Two other registered editors have provided opinions, one supporting the article's statement by questioning the evidence and the other believing there is adequate evidence provided. How do you think we can help? If the evidence provided is satisfactory, the statement under dispute should be either: a) removed from the article, b) amended to make clear that it is a claim made by the subject, c) amended to make clear that it is a claim made by the subject without supporting evidence, or d) amended to make clear that it is a claim made by the subject without supporting evidence and is disputed. Additional evidence can be provided to conclude the dispute. Opening comments by BashBranniganPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The argument that Jobs' statement that the company was "90 days from bankruptcy" when he arrived is that the only source is from Jobs himself. I did a quick search and was able to find a New York Times article from March 28, 1996 which discusses Apples grave financial situation, specifically a $700 million loss in it’s second quarter. Here is the link: New York Time 1996/03/28 apple-expects-it-will-lose-700-million.html From the article: “A former Apple executive, who spoke on the ground that he not be named, said that the company's financial situation was so dire that he believed Apple was likely to be in the hands of its bankers, Citibank and Bank of America, by the end of the year.” As Jobs took over in Dec of 69 this gives independent credence to Jobs “90 days” quote and certainly to the grave situation. Additionally, in the evidence provided against Apple being near bankruptcy, it appears that the SEC filing is from late 97 and Jobs arrived late 96, so I’m not sure it applies. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Dream FocusSomeone who understands all the stuff in the SEC report should comment on whether or not Jobs was just lying to exaggerate his own importance, as everyone that knew him said he often did(see his official biography). I commented on how the current source referenced in the article is "just what Jobs said in an interview. Thus it comes from a primary source. You need to find a better source to keep it there". Can anyone find any evidence to keep that bit in the article? Dream Focus 11:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Apple Computer's 1997 Financial Rescue discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the Guide for participants at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, everyone has made a statement. Please give me a little time (less than a day) to read all of the talk page history, check all the references, etc, and then I will open this up for discussion. Thanks for your patience. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC) I am now opening this for comments. I am going to ask you all to try to keep your comments brief and to the point, and to take your time composing and polishing your answers. Also, ask yourself "is this really new, or am I repeating what I wrote before?" I have read all of the talk page comments and article versions, followed the links, and did a bit of searching myself. For my first run through, I did a little trick I like to do in these cases. I loaded all the comments (here and on the talk page) into my sandbox, deleted all the sigs and any references to names, went away for an hour, and just looked at the arguments without knowing who said what. Later will re-read it with the sigs. From this I came to some preliminary thoughts. Please don't think that these carry any special weight; right now I am seeing what we can all agree on First, I was glad to see that I am not dealing with a "problem editor" Everyone seems to want the best for the encyclopedia rather than being disruptive. That isn't always true in these DRN cases. There are a few places where a better understanding of our policies would help. I would like whoever (don't tell me who!) wrote "Further analysis of the referenced SEC document will indicate..." to carefully read WP:OR (and possibly WP:V and WP:RS if you have time.) These policies can be hard to follow, because sometimes there is something that is true, that everyone agrees is true, and which is glaringly obvious with just a tiny amount of analysis, yet you not only have to not put it in, you have to actively work with the other editors to keep it out as editors come and go. I would like whoever wrote (again, don't say who!) "The source is just what Jobs said in an interview. Thus it comes from a primary source. You need to find a better source to keep it there" to consider the following: deletion is not the only option. Attribution is an acceptable alternative, Instead of "Apple was X" with the only source being Jobs, you can change it to "In (month) of (year), Steve Jobs said that Apple was X". You can even follow it with a "The SEC said apple was Y", but it has to be a direct conclusion, not something we have to do OR to figure out. (I am pretty sure you all know all of this already, but only deletion was mentioned in the above quote). OK, have at each other, but take your time and be concise. One strong argument beats a hundred weak ones. Thanks! One final thing; if anyone for any reason wants, I will be happy to step away, no questions asked, and ask for another volunteer to take over. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Neutral point_of_view/Noticeboard#Cobo_Center
![]() | DRN is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by MaryKlida on 17:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview I am requesting an editor "Codepro" remove his addition of info on the Cobo Center page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobo_Center#History as it is not notable or currently relevant to the Center. It sites a 45 year old crime that occurred outside the center and involved a law suite with the City of Detroit: On April 20, 1967 15 year-old George Overman Jr was stabbed in the chest in a robbery attempt near a doorway of Cobo Hall, crawled or stumbled to an elevator and died. [2][3] George Overman Sr. filed a $1,025,000 suit in Circuit Court against the City of Detroit stating that the Detroit Police Department failed to provide adequate police protection at Cobo Hall.[4] He has also added news articles as references that are equally as old, and do not cite the verdict or outcome of the lawsuit, but have alot of color and drama that can dim the reputation of the facility. I believe the statements and articles are not notable, current or relevant. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Notes on edit history page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cobo_Center&action=history Notes on my Talk page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MaryKlida How do you think we can help? I am hoping we can convince Codepro to voluntarily remove his material and contribute to the page in a constructive manner. I do appreciate his notes of where information on citations are needed in the article, but not his antagonistic approach to posting warnings on the page before discussing his issues with me. I will be happy to consider mediation if this step is not productive. Thank you for your assistance, Opening comments by CodeproPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Wikipedia:Neutral point_of_view/Noticeboard#Cobo_Center discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Microsoft Office 2013
![]() | There seems to be an unwillingness to resolve this dispute from several parties and the consensus among the participants is that it should be closed as "failed". What this dispute needs is third-party feedback and I will strongly advise parties to open a RFC, and if you believe that the conduct issues are severe enough, open an ANI case, or ultimately, seek arbitration. Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 14:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Recently, magazines have started dedicating coverage to an issue of Microsoft Office 2013: Apparently, the retail versions may only be installed on one computer only. Purchasing a replacement computer means purchasing a new Office. But how much coverage should we dedicate to this issue? Does WP:SYNTH allow us to say "this might not be legal in Europe" from a source that neither mentions Microsoft, nor Office 2013? (let alone the issue at hand). In addition, there are a lot of unreferenced info. (e.g "Microsoft publicly stated that this change was meant to reduce (or, even eliminate) the pirating of Office that has been rampant for years" fails to be verified against its source.) Should they be kept just because one editor keeps reverting their removal? What about speculations? Is keeping them not against WP:NOT? Have you tried to resolve this previously? This issue has been discussed twice in Talk:Microsoft Office 2013. There are two separate discussion threads. All mentioned involved users have participated except User:Dogmaticeclectic, who prefers reverting instead of talking. How do you think we can help? As Max Payne says "a millions of dollars question I didn't have the answer for." Opening comments by DogmaticeclecticFirst of all, WP:CON has already been established at the article's talk page, with all essentially agreeing except for User:Codename Lisa (who at first attempted to ignore it altogether while simultaneously pretending that the issue had already been addressed, and later added the content to the lead as discussed but did so in a manner that made it quite difficult for the average reader to spot). Second, this sentence on that talk page (not by me) - combined with WP:WEIGHT - summarizes my opinion quite well: "From the perspective of news coverage by reliable sources, *the* most discussed new attribute of the retail version of Office 2013 is that it is locked to one machine forever." Third, this dispute is not about the content (WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:NOT, etc.) - since there exist numerous WP:RS for that, including the original Microsoft EULA itself - but about the currently-existing content's visibility (User:Codename Lisa is trying to change the subject again). (Fourth, to quote myself this time: "My responses to you were included in my edit summaries. In such cases, I do not think it is necessary to duplicate discussion.") Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by SonicdrewdriverMy personal opinion is that it shouldn't be included too heavily, simply because straight answers are hard to find. We have sources that back up the currently-included point, but there are other sources available that contradict it. I understand that it's a major issue, not something small, that's why I believe some coverage is good, but we shouldn't be alarmist when Microsoft themselves have been known to contradict our summary of their terms. They've failed to respond to direct questioning when I've put it to them (so far) as an organisation, but technical support staff from the company have made statements that muddy the water significantly, if not completely contradict us. drewmunn talk 12:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by GreglovernMy opinion is that this is very important information that should be briefly stated in the lead and then stated in more detail in the body. For people who have been buying retail editions of Office for many years, this is a very surprising change, and one which can lead to an expensive ($400 for retail Office Pro) mistake. When we read very surprising information that is mentioned only in passing, it is human nature to assume that the source must be mistaken. To state very surprising information only in passing is to do a disservice to Wikipedia readers. That disservice is compounded when the information could have helped readers avoid an expensive mistake. A reader who makes such an expensive mistake after reading the Wikipedia entry would naturally feel betrayed by Wikipedia. In accordance with the Wikipedia principle of giving "due weight" (see neutral point of view), surprising information should be given the prominence that would be expected by a reasonable reader, so that the reader takes notice instead of assuming that Wikipedia is mistaken. A reasonable reader would expect such a surprising change to be included in the lead and then stated in detail in the body. Microsoft representatives who have been asked about this change in the license agreement have given wildly varying answers. However, the license agreement itself is very clear, and in previous retail Office versions Microsoft meant exactly what they said in the license agreement. Withholding information because we fear Microsoft might really mean something different is not in accord with Wikipedia policy. Where Codename Lisa says "consensus was reached" regarding her dispute with my edits in January and early February, I disagree. I had stopped when I felt I'd done as much as I could, given that per Wikipedia policy I could only quote Microsoft's license agreement and could not "interpret" it in any way. I still believed that the information was not given "due weight". Greg (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by FormerIPPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comment by uninvolved editor: FleetCommandWithout naming any name, here is my observation of the article in regard to the current dispute:
Fleet Command (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Microsoft Office 2013 discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
QuestionI am a little confused about the comment concerning WP:SYNTH and Office '13 in Europe. Could someone please clarify? Thanks. — nerdfighter(academy) 18:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Volunteer's notesHello everyone, I will try to help achieve a consensus in this case. I have not been involved, nor heard of this dispute before reading this request. I would appreciate if you would give me some time to go through the dispute before I will proceed with the negotiations. If you have any questions, please ask them below. Zaminamina (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
You list the following points as the ones that you disagree on. Could you please explain your views on these points, as well as your desired outcome? Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 20:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Questions for the volunteerHello, Zaminamina. Can I inquire as to what is the cause of all this delay? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Statement regarding this disputeI think this dispute should be closed. There's now a massive discussion at Talk:Microsoft Office 2013#Problem in areas about licensing (not to mention the rest of that talk page), and it seems to address the reason for opening this dispute in the first place (though not the discussion regarding the article content). Furthermore, given how long this dispute has remained mostly inactive, and especially how long the discussion has continued at the talk page, I think it would be far more useful to simply continue there (and request that the users involved in this dispute voice their opinions there too, since only two users are currently discussing this matter there - including myself). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Moot?ZDNet reports license transfer restored. Garamond Lethet
I see a lot of behavior issues, but not much in the way of content disputes anymore, now that the license terms have been changed. This obviates the need for mentioning it in the lead paragraph, and it doesn't take but a few sentences to deal with "the license used to be x, but in response to consumer pressure, it is now y." I avoided getting involved initially because of my personal views on the topic, but i don't see how this change does anything but moot the content concerns. WP:DRN does not handle behavior disputes, and those are now, i think, the primary issues. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 21:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
|
Talk:men's rights movement
![]() | DRN is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. Suggest WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U. Guy Macon (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview User carptrash is creating a hostile editing environment for new editors. She is not being civil, not assuming good faith, and generally derailing discussions. She has already been warned by another user about her behavoir, and has her comments hidden due to ad hominem attacks. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have asked her to keep discussions on topic and to assume good faith. I have asked other users to talk to her as well. How do you think we can help? Instruct user carptrash on proper wiki etiquette. Opening comments byPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:men's rights movement discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Cobo Center
![]() | A parallel discussion is happening at the NPOV noticeboard, so we need to wait until that finishes. At that time a DRN or RFC can be started. --Noleander (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2013 (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 An editor Codepro posted information on a 45 year old stabbing outside of Cobo Center and a lawsuit with the City of Detroit that resulted. There is no mention of a verdict or outcome of the law suit, and my opinion is the post is not notable for the history of the center or relevant to current events. He has also posted reference articles related to the incident that I have asked that he voluntarily remove. I have made mistakes in trying to resolve this, the first was removing his post twice within a 24 hour period. I now understand Wiki protocol a bit better. I have also tried to improve the article in the manner requested by Codepro, but can's seem to get the hang of the reference and citation software. In the meantime, Codepro has posted a COI dispute on the noticeboard here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Cobo_Center The resulting discussion puts Codepro's COI in question instead of mine, and he has not responded to this. Also, instead of helping me post the citations he requests, he is posting warnings at the top of the page. [added by Noleander:] The material in question is:
[end Noleander addition.] --Noleander (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MaryKlida Discussion on Codepros talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Codepro Discussion on neutral Point of View Noticeboard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Cobo_Center A failed attempt at Dispute resolution request because I did not fill out the form correctly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard How do you think we can help? I would like Codpro to voluntarily take down the Overton incident material and warnings from the Cobo Center article, and contribute in a constructive way to the page. The Wiki instructions tell me that if I can't get the hang of the software for references and citations, to put the information on the page, and other editors will come along to help reformat. I would like some help in doing that, as I have invested a great deal of time, and can't. thanks. Opening comments by CodeProI request the NPOV discussion to be the primary one at this time. More time is needed to sort this out, and the NPOV discussion could potentially include other post I plan to make in the near future. Codepro (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by FluffernutterPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
I don't see myself as actively involved in this dispute, but for what it's worth, I substantially trimmed Codepro's original addition, on the basis of it being undue weight on the matter even if the matter were relevant to the article. I also gave both users 3RR warnings and suggested they pursue in-process routes to resolve the dispute. As far as whether the matter is relevant to the article, I would prefer to let new eyes make that judgment. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Guy MaconAs an active dispute resolution volunteer, I am recusing myself from any involvement in this case so as to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. Opening comments by Paul BThis is an issue of undue weight, essentially. Codepro added information about an incident that occurred in 1967: "On April 20, 1967 15 year-old George Overman Jr was stabbed in the chest in a robbery attempt near a doorway of Cobo Hall, crawled or stumbled to an elevator and died." The original sentence contained other information about the victim's family, but this was cut. There was also at one point a comment about a case against the local authorities (not the Cobo Center) concerning adequate policing, but there was no information about the outcome. The problem is that this sentence appears to stick out like a "sore thumb". There is no context for it. The rest of the article makes no reference to safety concerns. No evidence is provided that this was significant issue for the Center at the time or that there is any discussion about ongoing safety problems. The incident certainly occurred and is adequately cited, but it happened long ago and seems irrelevant to the article as it is currently organised. Paul B (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Cobo Center discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi. I'm a volunteer here at DRN, and I'd be glad to help. Volunteers have no special authority, but are willing to facilitate a resolution. Let's wait for all parties to post opening statements before getting into a discussion. --Noleander (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Status update: waiting for user Codepro to provide an opening statement. --Noleander (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
|
Swiss referendum, 2013
![]() | Disputes over Articles for Deletion will be decided by the editor or administrator who closes the listing, and thus have their own built-in resolution process. DRN is not, per its guidelines, for disputes pending in other forums. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview There is a page wiki/Swiss_referendum,_2013. There is also a page describing an initiative that was part of that referendum wiki/Swiss_referendum_%22against_corporate_Rip-offs%22_of_2013. One editor feels the latter should be deleted or merged, others disagree. There is also the issue as to what the latter page should be called, if the the decision is Keep. Currently there is rename fight in progress. The talk page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swiss_referendum_"against_corporate_Rip-offs"_of_2013 contains numerous exchanges. The editors concerned can't agree and we need external assistance to resolve this. Thanks for your time. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Debate has failed How do you think we can help? By ruling (sadly) that 1. the page be kept/merged/deleted 2. If it's keep, the initiative's title Opening comments by number 57Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by wikideaSeems the best name is the one that it was on before (I tried to move it back, but made a mistake). This is "Swiss referendum "against rip-off salaries" of 2013". It'd be great if an admin can perform this move. Thanks, Wikidea 15:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Swiss referendum_%22against_corporate_Rip-offs%22_of_2013 discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Deaths in 2013
![]() | Conduct dispute. As characterized, this is mainly a conduct, not a content, dispute and this noticeboard is not for conduct disputes. (Try a RFC/U if you want to complain about conduct.) There are three content disputes mentioned, however, (a) one about the designation of nationalities when an deceased individual is from a territory or similar situation, (b) one about the content to be included in reference to African-Americans, and (c) one about the use of the word "Kiwi". There has not been sufficient discussion at the article talk page to bring (b) or (c) here yet. There has been enough discussion to bring (a) here, and it can be brought here, but if it is then it needs to be done without making allegations about conduct and needs to include the other individuals — there are at least two — who have been involved in that discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Top 2 editors by number on the Death board and we are just having a series of skirmishes. For my part I have tried to work around him. I usually upload many of the additions and CoDs, WWGB usually handles the final editing decisions. Each important in their own right. I am not super upset with him its just there are a few issues between us that are driving the other one crazy. One is he can not justify his Nationality policy. He treats indigenous people differently than other people. WWGB is Australian and I have shown him on Wiki for example that people from Puerto Rico have the same territorial rights as American Indian Nations, yet he insists on calling one American and the other Puerto Rican. Same thing with Chinese and Hong Kong. I have tried talking to him, showing him facts and presenting him with a plan both privately and on the Death talk page, but its not working. Now WWGB seems to have a problem with American culture references to the 1950s and 1960s because African-American firsts are not noteworthy (to him) yet are featured in the articles I cite. Take yesterdays' article on Harold Hunter. He was the first Af-Am to sign an NBA contract, yet WWGB doesnt think that is notable and has already reverted me 3x in 6 hours (not even 24). Yes, I got upset after the 3rd time and said something I shouldnt have, but I dont talk about Australia if I dont understand a cultural reference and I dont believe WWGB gets that. I have always deferred to him on that subject. For my part, I understand he is upset with me over the use of the term "Kiwi" which he regards as a colloquial use for New Zealand. Yet I have shown him time and again that the word "Kiwi" is used 100x per month in headlines from New Zealand around the world and shouldnt be still considered as such. What I want is to just get along. I do this to relax and one of my push buttons in real life is when people get treated differently because of what they are and not who they are. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have talked back and forth on each others talk page. We have tried talking on the Death talk page. Its just not getting resolved. And its frustrating. In the past he has shown me a couple of things and I have shown him a couple of things to resolve issues. For a long time for instance I was using the wrong – because I use a different type keyboard than him. We figured that out and resolved it. Its just not getting resolved this time around. How do you think we can help? I am hoping that you can help us to communicate better with 3rd party mediation. I understand he is from Australia and I am from the United States. I am probably a little bit older (late 40s) than he is so I dont know if it is a generational thing besides being a cultural thing. Opening comments by WWGBPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Deaths in 2013 discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Pharmaceutical Industry
![]() | quick-closed because not enough discussion on talk page. you may also want to try WP:3O first, once you have discussed it further. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 01:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview We have a dispute regarding the NPOV policy and reliable sourcing policy regarding a section in the "Controversies" section. Specifically I believe that NPOV policy is being violated, and we both believe the others edits are not adequately supported by the cited sources, or that the sources cited are inappropriate Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussions on the article Talk page. In addition I have responded to extensive comments by SlimVirgin on my personal talk page How do you think we can help? I would appreciate some outside opinion on this as we have not been able to resolve it among ourselves. I believe we are both willing to accept external input. Opening comments by SlimVirginPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Hi, it's too early to bring this here. The discussion on talk has only just begun (see this section); Alfred has posted there around three times and I have posted four. The situation is that Alfred removed some sentences and sources, and another editor reverted. [2] Alfred removed them again, and I reverted. [3] Then he added some material that I felt was inappropriate, so I retained some of it and removed a part that was based on a primary source. [4] I've asked him on article talk and on his own talk page to use secondary sources, per MEDRS. That's where the discussion is at present. If he finds a secondary source for that material, I have no problem with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Pharmaceutical Industry discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Karl Marx
![]() | No current dispute. This is really a help or assistance request or an effort to build consensus against an already-established position. If you wish for help or assistance with Wikipedia standards, consider Editor assistance if you wish to build consensus, consider a request for comments. While there is no doubt that consensus can change, such changes must be built and DRN is not the correct venue to do so. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview There is an issue with the statement "He is also considered one of the greatest economists of all time." in the opening paragraph for the article on Karl Marx. I believe it's broken these rules as quoted from Wikipedia: "Be careful with weasel words Weasel words are a way to give unconfirmable assertions the appearance of fact. "Houston is considered the friendliest city in the world." Really, now. Who says so? Do not use expressions like "is claimed", "is thought to be", and "is alleged," without saying specifically who is doing the claiming, thinking or alleging."[5] "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.""[6] As explained above (the word 'considered' is even used in the example of what not to use), such broad statements should not be made, instead the sentence should refer specifically to the people who say so. An accurate phrase would be for example "Vince Cable lists him as the 4th greatest economist of all time." The broad terminology which is currently used does not state who considers him to be one of the greatest economists of all time, and therefore leaves the impression it is a widespread belief which it is not, and the references do not support that either. Another rule it breaks is: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." I can't go into detail about this due to the character limit but this is certainly a contested statement. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I recently read this article and thought this statement was extremely bias and therefore felt the need to raise the issue on the talk page. I had a discussion with another user who has since stopped responding. He also notified me that this has been discussed before (I have linked both of these pages in the location of dispute box). The sentence has been added and removed several times by other users yet there is no consensus on the issue despite much previous debate. It is still there now. How do you think we can help? Please clarify if this sentence is appropriate and if it should be removed. I don't think I've ever read a Wikipedia article about a person which has such a broad unspecified statement of praise in an opening paragraph. I believe it was added by users to promote his agenda. Not even Adam Smith has such a prominent and broad statement of greatness in the opening paragraph of his Wikipedia article so it seems totally inappropriate for someone as controversial as Karl Marx to have this stated. Opening comments by RolandRI have no interest in discussing this with this user, who has made a total of twelve edits to Wikipedia, half of which consist of hostile soap-boxing on the article talk page. As far as I am concerned, rthere is no dispute and nothing to discuss. RolandR (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by KuyabribriPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
My "involvement" in this dispute was purely in a housekeeping role. I came across the page in my routine check of CAT:ESP and I only closed an outstanding Opening comments by Polisher of CobwebsPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by PiotrusPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by ArchivingcontextPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Sarg PepperPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by MalkinI'm really not involved in this and won't be participating at any great length. I offered a few sources in the last but one discussion about this that would support either the 'great' or 'influential' wording. Personally I'm equivocal, there's no real difference between these two wording choices IMO. However, I also feel Hutchski has not attempted to reach consensus to any great extent on the talk page. Kate (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Paul SiebertPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Karl Marx discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Rene Redzepi
![]() | This request has yet to achieve the necessary level of discussion for a DR case to take place. — ΛΧΣ21 04:59, 12 March 2013 (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 article on Rene Rexhepi, a succesfull chef in northern Europe. The article has been locked by a moderator called "the Banner" and cannot be edited .In Rexhepi's Early life, the author of the article writes that Rexhepi is "half Danish/half Macedonian", whithout specifing his Albanian ethnic background, which for Rexhepi is very important, as he has specified in several interviews. Despite being asked repeatedly to correct the article by bringing evidence about his origins (New York Times articles, respectable cooking magazines, Video interviews), the user "The Banner" refutes to edit the article and to examine the evidence provided without giving a satisfactory explanation. He appears to have an unreasonable and generally snobbing attitude towards other users, and has made rhetorical questions which clearly reveal prejudice towards Albanians, something that made me accuse him of being biased and having prejudice toward this ethnicity. Despite overcoming the heated part of the discussion and trying to explain him where the problem lies, he avoids the issue by taking the dipute on a personal level (he feels attacked). I have used some remarks too but that's because I think that he has racial prejudices, something I can't really tollerate. The dispute has not been fruitful, I guess I have my part of guilt. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Mostly by argumenting and asking him to provide reasons for his behaviour, something he apparently won't do. How do you think we can help? Simply by checking the supplied sources and judge on the character's right ethnicity. Understanding the reasons why the user "The Banner" won't accept other evidence and (possibly) whether he has racial prejudices. Opening comments by The BannerPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
In short, POV-pushers accusing me of racism and prejudice because I keep asking for reliable sourcing. In fact, I think not every editor is what it looks like, so I have requested Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Etimo. The Banner talk 23:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Further mediation not necessary as filer did not even try to get involvement from third parties before coming here. The Banner talk 23:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC) And final: he just seems to think that you guys will now solve the case: (...) that the issue has been sent to the Dispute Resolution notice board and and now it's responsibility of others. The Banner talk 00:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by GuzhinjeriPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by TripiShPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Rene Redzepi discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Wasteland 2#Game_Camera_View
![]() | There has been very little activity on this over the last four days or so, so I will now close it. Consensus seems to be that the term "isometric", though in the source, is not correct and that per ignoring all rules or using common sense the term can be ignored. I will leave the precise wording to a discussion on the article talk page, but the outcome of this discussion seems to be a consensus to not use the term isometric. Thanks to all who participated. Go Phightins! 19:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Game sites sourced in the article claim that the game uses an isometric view. This claim is agreed upon by all parties involved as inconsistent with all writing on the subject of isometric projection. One side of the dispute believes that the source(s) should be considered unreliable on the subject of isometric projection, based on the greater reliability of dictionaries, textbooks, etc. On the other end, a user believes that the source calling it isometric is enough to make it so. No claim is made by any party that the game is consistent with any definitions of isometric projection, only that this misinformation should be included because it can be sourced, and directly stated claims to the contrary about this particular game cannot. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on board. This resulted in repeated threats from user Niemti, continued revert wars, reports of abuse, and accusations of canvassing and sockpuppetry for all users disagreeing with Niemti. How do you think we can help? Need opinions on reliability of the sources for the specific context of isometric projection. Opening comments by NiemtiPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The sources need to be directly related to the subject of the article. You gotta find them, or else it's original research. That you, or me, or anyone else, happen to disagree with whatever the developers and the media are saying, it just doesn't matter. At all. That's not something for any kind of discussion, and you're again just wasting time (mine, yours, and now you want waste time of more people). You've got to understand it and you're not going to change it, ever. That's, seriously, all. --Niemti (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by SxerksIn the given video the developer states it is no longer "static isometric". "isometric" IS static, it is not free-motion. Developer states users can "move the camera" "change the direction of the camera" which is consistent with the use in the visual source and consistent with the description of an "Interactive 3rd person camera"--Sxerks (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by ThomasO1989While I'm normally against original research, leaving out a statement on an objective idea when one knows it to be incorrect is plain common sense. It isn't good judgement to blindly accept what reliable sources say, because being reliable doesn't imply infallible. I feel that describing visuals is very finicky, because you risk mixing objective with subjective claims. Isometric projection is objective however, and it's not unreasonable if many people disagree that the projection is isometric based on previous knowledge. The sources in question obviously don't specialize in differentiating different forms of projection, and leaving out the claim is an improvement to the article because it potentially makes the article less inaccurate. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by SharkDPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The dispute is over whether the game's visual perspective should be labeled "isometric projection" or not. See also Isometric graphics in video games and pixel art and here for a similar dispute outside Wikipedia. I don't think "isometric" should be used in this game's case. I think we should instead opt for different terminology. SharkD Talk 20:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Furious StylePlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Observation by uninvolved editor Garamond LetheRather than approach this as an WP:OR problem, it might be simpler to solve it using WP:UNDUE: using the technical term in a nonstandard way in the absence of the standard use gives undue weight to the nonstandard definition. Garamond Lethet
Talk:Wasteland 2#Game_Camera_View discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Going off of what Niemti suggested, what if we attributed the point of view issues to the game creator saying, "According to the game's official development blog, it features a 'modern take on a classic isometric RPG should look'"? Go Phightins! 20:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Drive-by comment by uninvolved editor - For me it looks like ThomasO1989 hit the nail on the head with: "leaving out a statement on an objective idea when one knows it to be incorrect is plain common sense. It isn't good judgement to blindly accept what reliable sources say, because being reliable doesn't imply infallible." In this case, isometric projection has a dictionary definition which is established and accepted - it is not a disputed concept - if the game features a free moving camera then, quite simply, it is not isometric. A source usually considered reliable can be ignored if making an obvious error like this. At most it can be mentioned that there is a claim the game is isometric but that stated as incorrect and sourced with any RS source on isometric projection. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 08:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
|
Julie Menin
![]() | No talk page discussion. Talk page discussion is needed prior to making an appeal to any form of dispute resolution and substantial discussion is needed before coming to DRN. Make a request for discussion on the article talk page and place a note on the other editor or editors talk pages. If reversions then continue without discussion, make a complaint of disruptive editing to WP:ANI or make a request for comments to bring other editors into the discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I have been engaged in an "edit war" with user Sportsman9830 over edits I have made to Julie Menin's page. On various occasions I have attempted to add relevant and well-sourced information on her Manhattan Borough President campaign, and have expanded upon already existing information on her wiki page. User Sportsman9830 has continuously deleted my edits, and has accused me of "vandalizing" her page for political reasons. He noted that I have also edited Jessica Lappin's page, who is her competitor in the Manhattan Borough President race and have only written non-negative things about her. Yet he fails mention that I have previously edited Brad Hoylman, Daniel O'Donnell, Didi Barrett, and the New York State Assembly and State Senate pages as well. I make these edits because I am knowledgeable about New York politics and believe users looking up political candidates to educate themselves before voting (or for whatever reason) should get the most accurate picture of the candidates, not read the scripted information that the campaign consultants meticulously vet prior to posting. I don't know what Sportsman9830's affiliation to Julie Menin is, if he has one at all, but if he is this caught up with another use posting relevant and accurate information to the wiki page, it would seem that he is, in fact, the one who has a bias in this situation. I will reiterate that all of my edits were publicly sourced consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. I have not just added random defamatory bits of information -- I've expanded upon sections (and sometimes even sentences) previously written into the article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Appealed to the talk page of Mdann52, who restored my edits because they were reliably sourced. Yet my edits have been removed once again. How do you think we can help? Hopefully by reinforcing the standards of Wikipedia, fleshing out any underlying reasons for wanting to delete accurate edits and ensuring that the most accurate information is allowed to be displayed on the page. Opening comments by Sportsman9830Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Jschwartz533Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Veritas411Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Nygiants212300Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Julie Menin discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Greetings, I am Shiny Bauble; a volunteer DNR. I would like to help resolve this issue, but I'd like to know the level communication between the parties involved. Have you tried to resolve this issue with the user you're warring with? If so, if I could see some diffs I will get right to work with trying to resolve this issue. Thanks, Shiny Bauble! Pretty Shinies... 20:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
|
Map projection
![]() | Considering we have a consensus and the only proponant of using the mathematical definition instead of cartelogical has declared he is not returning to the project here I am marking this as resolved Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 15:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Filed by 184.186.8.148 on 00:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Whether or not a sphere is a two-dimensional object. The Map projection page is about the commonplace mapping of two-dimensional spheres (like the surface of the Earth) to two-dimensional planes (like a road map). Now, this is not strictly correct (as you can have higher-dimensional mappings), but I have conceded that the article need not go into these complexities. I originally thought that it should. Nevertheless, User:Strebe insists on including one of two locutions in the article, both of which are factually incorrect: (1) that a sphere is 3-dimensional, or (2) that the surface of a sphere is 2-dimensional (no one talks this way, but technically the surface of a sphere is 1-dimensional. The article, in my view, should be consistent and precise in its usage. The mathematical definition of the surface of the Earth is a "sphere"--and that is what the article should say. The Earth itself (and not its surface) is a "ball". Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have attempted to discuss the issue on the article's Talk page, and I have issued an RfC. I have also attempted to engage Strebe on his Talk page, but he has said that I am "blather[ing]", "wasting everyone's time", and that I "simply [do] not understand English or the topic well enough" (in fact, I'm a native English speaker and a mathematician). Strebe has said about me: "That makes you a troll" and "You are wasting everyone’s time, including your own. Go away." How do you think we can help? I am a new editor, but I believe that I have acted in good faith. I think that if a third party with expertise verified that a sphere is a 2-dimensional entity, that would help. Or, if consensus could determine, through basic Internet research, the status of this claim. Again, I am willing to limit the article to the common use of projections, but I believe we must be consistent and correct in our terminology. Opening comments by 184.186.8.148A sphere is 2-dimensional. While language is sometimes used haphazardly--in referring to, for example, a soccer ball as a 'sphere', it should not be used haphazardly in a Wikipedia article, and especially a mathematical article. A soccer ball is a ball, and the surface of a ball is a sphere. "[T]he term 'sphere' refers to the surface only, so the usual sphere is a two-dimensional surface. The colloquial practice of using the term 'sphere' to refer to the interior of a sphere is therefore discouraged, with the interior of the sphere (i.e., the 'solid sphere') being more properly termed a 'ball.'" (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphere.html). I have already conceded that we can keep the article focused on common map projections (viz. from the surface of the Earth to a 2-dimensional plane). Strictly speaking, a projection need not go only from a curved 2-dimensional surface to a flat 2-dimensional surface, but I agree with User:Strebe that that need not be the point of the article. I do not agree, however, that we can substitue "sphere" for "ball" or "surface of a sphere" for "sphere" or refer to spheres (in this context) as 3-dimensional objects. We must be consistent with our usage throughout the article. We should refer to spheres, or "the surface of the Earth" (=a sphere), and always as 2-dimensional objects. The fact that a sphere is 2-dimensional may be trivially verified by asking, 'how many coordinates does it take to specify a point?' On a sphere it takes two, latitude and longitude (e.g.). Therefore no matter how we decide the CONTENT of the article should be shaped, claims like "the surface of the Earth is 3-dimensional", or "a sphere is 3-dimensional" are simply wrong. Opening comments by StrebeNo one claimed “the surface of the Earth is 3-dimensional”, so I ignore that. 184.186.8.148 insists on a “mathematical” definition of a sphere whereas the article is written by the standards of the map projection literature. I gave references on the Talk page and a citation in the article. 184.186.8.148 deleted the citation. The references agree with each other and disagree with 184.186.8.148. English dictionaries state a sphere is a solid: (Oxford American Dictionary)
I do not always think we should go with a general dictionary’s definition over the technical just for the comfort of the reader. In such cases an article should explain the distinction. But that is not the case here. In map projections, the term “sphere” carries the same meaning as the vernacular: (John P. Snyder, An Album of Map Projections [US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1453])
Here, Snyder refers to “the surface of the sphere” rather than “the sphere” as 184.186.8.148 wants. This usage is repeated consistently:
I established on the Talk page that map projections are a cartographic endeavor with its own literature. That literature is the authority for map projections. This is nothing more than a case of someone from one field zealously misapplying a pedantism to a different field. Strebe (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Alvesgaspar
Opening comments by Boing! said ZebedeeEven the Wikipedia article Sphere defaults to common terminology...
It makes an explicit point that mathematics terminology is different...
Opening comments by HhhippoAs far as I can see, it is undisputed that there are different definitions of 'Sphere'. It seems furthermore accepted by all participants that this article is mostly about cartography, not mathematics. Therefore the main goal of the article should be to clearly explain the topic of map projections within the context of cartography. Where it is possible to keep this description consistent with the mathematical definitions of the terms used, without impairing the main goal, this should be done. Otherwise, the definitions common in cartography should be used, and marked as such in an unobtrusive way (e.g. by inserting "in cartography,..." or footnotes). Special care should be taken when linking to articles which might use different definitions. A separate section on the mathematical details would be a nice addition, but in the lede I would value the clarity of the description higher than its completeness. — HHHIPPO 22:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Peter MercatorPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by AlanM1Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Map projection discussionHello I am MGray98 (talk) , a volunteer for the DRN. All users need to make opening statements before we begin, but i first want to point out two things.
--MGray98 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, we can now get started. I've read up on some stuff and I think you two can discuss this now. Since the unregistered user made the request, you can go first Strebe. Do you have a source that categorizes a sphere as three-dimensional? MGray98 (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Question: Are we questioning whether spheres in general are two or three-dimensional, or spheres used in map projections? MGray98 (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
ProposalIn response to Cabe6403, I offer these specific proposals. Note that I'm pretty happy the way the article currently looks, since we got rid of the factual errors. But I do think some minor improvements can still be made. Namely: (1) Change sentence one FROM "A map projection is a systematic transformation of points on a sphere, a revolution ellipsoid or any other reference surface to points on a plane." TO "A map projection is a systematic transformation of points on a sphere or other curved surface to points on a plane or other flat surface." (2) In the "BACKGROUND" section: FROM "For simplicity of description, most of this article assumes that the surface to be mapped is that of a sphere. In reality, the Earth and other large celestial bodies are generally better modeled as oblate spheroids, whereas small objects such as asteroids often have irregular shapes. These other surfaces can be mapped as well. Therefore, more generally, a map projection is any method of "flattening" into a plane a continuous curved surface." TO "For simplicity of description, most of this article assumes that the surface to be mapped is a sphere. In reality, the Earth and other large celestial bodies are generally better modeled as oblate spheroids, whereas small objects such as asteroids often have irregular shapes. The surfaces of these other objects can be mapped as well. Therefore, more generally, a map projection is any method of "flattening" into a plane a continuous curved surface. (3) In "CHOOSING A MODEL FOR THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH" section: FROM "Selecting a model for a shape of the Earth involves choosing between the advantages and disadvantages of a sphere versus an ellipsoid." TO "Selecting a model for the shape of the surface of the Earth involves choosing between the advantages and disadvantages of a sphere versus an ellipsoid." Again, I think that the article as it currently stands is pretty good, although I do think that the first sentence is a little clunky.184.186.8.148 (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
ProposalLet me start by saying that I haven't been active because of lots of homework, and for that I apologize. Back to the topic however, few say that the mathematical form of sphere is incorrect, and in any case is irrelevant. The problem seems to be whether sphere's mathematical definition is sutible for cartography. We should focus on that, not on the definition. Personally, I recognize a sphere as three-dimensional with a surface that is two-dimensional, using sinmple definitions. If 184.186.8.148 still disagrees with using "surface of sphere", then I propose leaving a "(see: Sphere)" note at the end of the sentence. --MGray98 (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
|
- ^ Snyder, John P.; Voxland, Philip M. (1989). An album of map projections.