Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 7
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Sri Lanka
 | Resolved — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
The use of Island country instead of Island nation Users involved
Users 1 and 2 seem to be out on Wikipedia to smear the image of Sri Lanka and Sinhalese people with various, random and unprovoked edits relating to Sinhales people such as Anula of Sri Lanka, Mahasiva of Sri Lanka, Suratissa of Sri Lanka, Uttiya of Sri Lanka, Pandukabhaya of Sri Lanka and Mutasiva of Sri Lanka. All these disputes are related to the recently ended Sri Lankan Civil War.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
There is a discussion on the talk page that is going nowhere.
Settle it once and for all by deciding what's best. Blackknight12 (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Sri Lanka discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I have nothing against a community called Sri Lankans as a community or Sinhalese as an ethnicity.I wish that the world should know about the genocide[I don't expect everyone to accept this ] done by the Sri Lankan state on Tamils during the last phase of the civil war from January 2009 -May2009.Sri Lankan state has been doing systematic genocide and cultural genocide of Tamils for the past 60 years and it has not stopped even after Sri Lankan state had militarily defeated the Tamil Nationalists/Separatists called Tamil Tigers in May 19,2009. I have not edited Anula of Sri Lanka, Mahasiva of Sri Lanka, Suratissa of Sri Lanka, Uttiya of Sri Lanka, Pandukabhaya of Sri Lanka and Mutasiva of Sri Lanka.
The meaning for the word nation given in Oxford dictionary is Nation Nation http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nation noun a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory:the world’s leading industrialized nations a North American Indian people or confederation of peoples. Phrases one nation [often as modifier] a nation not divided by social inequality:one-nation Tories Derivatives nationhood noun Origin: Middle English: via Old French from Latin natio(n-), from nat- 'born', from the verb nasci — (Arun1paladin (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC))
I've requested that the sysop who has protected the article replace the language with the last version I suggested above. If he does not do it, any editor may do so once the article becomes unprotected. I'd like to commend everyone for coming to a resolution on this issue. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
|
| Premature, but feel free to relist if needed. (But if you do, please use the "Initiate a new discussion" button to do so.) — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
I'd appreciate it if someone could look into the Best alternative to a negotiated agreement article. In my opinion, the Best_alternative_to_a_negotiated_agreement#More_complex_example_-_Misapplied_BATNA section has some serious problems, including WP:COI and WP:Coatrack; see Talk:Best alternative to a negotiated agreement for discussion. I believe that section should be removed, but other, single-issue, editors want to keep it. Could some uninvolved editors take a look? (PS, I have nothing to do with Southwest, TranStar, Air Tran, the airline industry, or labor union negotiations.) --Macrakis (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Godhra train burning
| No Talk Page discussion about this. Only revert waring. Re-file once discussion on the article talk page has occured. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Incident should mention new developments to the case namely the case against Nahendra Modi Users involved
This user is biased towards the Hindus and is of Indian Origin Chennai
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
message sent to him
allow accurate referencing of articles, Courageous 07 (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Godhra train burning discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
FIBA Americas Championship, 1988 Tournament of the Americas
| Duplicate request. Assistance was simultaneously requested and received through the Third Opinion project. Per DRN instructions, "This is not the place to discuss disputes that are already under discussions in other forums."— TransporterMan (TALK) 00:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Dispute (including edit warring) about sourcing: sources that contradict each other. Users involved
There is an anonymous user claiming that an "official" source should be above all the other sources. There is another user with two different sources, each pertaining to the content in question, which thinks his sources should have more weight.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Comment on user talk page. Comment on article's discussion page.
Clarify what should be done with this type of dispute, which affects four articles. Coquidragon (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC) FIBA Americas Championship, 1988 Tournament of the Americas discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Closing remark: Third Opinion given here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 00:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Sri Lanka religion statistics
| Unresolved, discussion no longer productive. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Appropriate sourcing of information. Users involved
Yes
Resolving the dispute
The Talk page of the article in dispute.
To define which source is more credible, the actually work i.e document/statistics or a published article from a 3rd party at a later date. Distributor108 (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Sri Lanka religion statistics discussion
"I suppose this "dispute" is about the religiosity of Sri Lanka." - Yes
I have given my approval for both these compromises, please select one of these which you are happy with and provide you approval so we can close this dispute. Distributor108 (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi there everyone. I have some points I'd like you to consider:
Does this sound reasonable to you both? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Further Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, its not place for discussion, leave that to legislative assemblies to decide if the stats are valid. Wikipedia will simply present this information, and include the footnote in the references that census was not completed distracts detailed in the footnote of the actual census. Distributor108 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Just an observation: Due to long-term edit warring at this article, the article is currently fully protected on an indefinite basis. That means that only administrators can edit the article. The Cambridge Factfinder 1993 statistics are currently in the article. This means that for them to be changed to the 2001 census data (and you can add my opposition to doing so, though I'm also open to Mr. Stradivarius's idea of using both if justified), then those in favor of the 2001 data must convince a sysop to change it. If Astronomyinertia's support/oppose analysis is correct, which it appears to be, then the chances of that happening seem very remote. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC) I strongly believe that the 2001 data should be used as this was accepted statistics within DoS, as the latest stats available. And considering the significant change between the presently used 1981 stats, and 2001 stats, its fair to say that 30 year old stats are no longer valid. Astronomyinertia stated 4 editors believe in keeping the 1981 stats, the discussion above shows otherwise. I strongly believe Wikipedia should use the latest and accepted statistics by DoS, as i understand the 2001 census was not carried out in all districts, I strongly believe that weather this invalidates the statistics or not is NOT up-to editors on Wikipedia to decide. These are the current published and accepted statistics by DoS, and therefore should be used. That is all Distributor108 (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Also considering the CIA worldfact book uses the 2001 stats with a footnote saying they are provisional is the best way to go in this situation. In what capacity do you completely reject the 2001 stats, and use a 1993 publication of 1981 stats, then claim it as a sourced from 1993. Please understand the difference between source and publication. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ce.html Distributor108 (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Folks, I've been watching the debate here and on the talk page. I haven't stepped in because it seems like the discussion has been fairly healthly and productive. I think it's just about hit the point where things are being repeated, suggesting to me that stepping in and trying to summarize views and suggest some options could be helpful. My work day went from decently open to dealing with another teams Summary and recommendationI've tried to go through everything posted here and on the talk page, looking to summarize the dispute and see if I can help point everyone towards a solution that's agreeable. I'm not an admin, nor is this page binding arbitration. We're here to help the editors work towards resolving a dispute by giving outside advice and guidance. The dispute is which set of figures to use as the breakdown of religions in Sri Lanka. The options I've seen proposed are the 1981 census data (also used by the 1993 Cambridge source), the 2001 census data and the Sri Lankan government website (source unknown). Besides Distributor108 and Astronomyinteria, several other editors offered opinions here and on the article talk page. In general, all of the options would probably pass muster as reliable sources, but none of them are what I'd call perfect. The 1981 data is old. The 2001 data is incomplete. The government page is from an unknown source. There's a fairly strong concensus that the 2001 data is not a good source because it's significantly incomplete. There's a noticeable shift between 1981 and 2001 in several groups and it's easily possible that the makeup of those 7 regions could affect the shift. While the data is more current, I think it's extremely difficult to overlook how incomplete it is, especially if you're trying to use the data to present a general picture of an entire country. Surveys that attempt to do that are done as random surveys across multiple geographic boundaries to eliminate potential bias. An example from my area would be to survey American politics without getting anyone from the northeast area. You'd end up with a skewed picture. I think nearly everyone accepts the 1993 Cambridge Factfinder (which uses the 1981 data) as a viable source. I think everyone also pointed out the age of the data. I agree, but it's also a complete data set. If the option is old but complete vs new but incomplete, I'm going to go with the old data and note the age of the data. The other option that I've seen is to use the data from the Sri Lankan government page. I don't know the source of their data which is a concern. It could be new, could be old. Who knows. I think it's an option to use the Cambridge as the image source then in the text note that the government currently estimates the figures as A, B, C. Distributor108 makes a valid point that the census data being used is old. The problem is that the more current data is flawed. Ultimately, the information on a Wikipedia article is based on a consensus of the editors using WP policies and guidelines to make decisions. The objects raised to the 2001 data set are firmly based in those policies and fall under editorial judgement. Astronomyinteria noted that a census was taken in July 2011, hopefully we'll get updated figures released from that census and we can get both accurate AND up-to-date figures. My recommendation would be to continue to use the 1993 Cambridge Factfinder data as the source, but note that the data is from 1981. I would consider adding notes in the text of the article, using the figures from the [http://www.gov.lk/gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=61&lang=en official government website, saying the government currently estimates the percentages as A, B, C. Ravensfire (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC) My Final recommendationThank you for your input Ravensfire, you made good summary with several good points. However I'd like to take the time to discuss my concerns. You keep saying the data is flawed, when its not flawed, the word should be incomplete or as CIA worldfactbook uses provisional. Their's nothing wrong with the actual underlying data. As I see from this discussion these are options that as been put forward.
My analysis on the above option
ConclusionRavensfire mentioned that the source from an unknown government site and provides a link to a government portal side. The government portal site is maintained by the coordinating agency ICTA, if you see the information on there is sourced incorrectly please contact them. I repeat again the government portal site is not a source but a publication. I have provided the link to the Department of Census and Statistics, where the information can be trusted to be genuine, its integrity guaranteed, takes full responsibility and liability for maintaining statistics. Full details of numbers and statistics are available there, and I repeat again this is the ONLY original source. we do not need to use publication when we have access to the original stats. Please refer to that site only, as any other source is a publication.
This is true, but when editors do not have the capacity to synthesize information correctly, and claims publications to be sources, do not have access to the source itself,; an admin should make the best judgement given the information above. Based on WP polices and guidelines, I think its clear that WP is an encyclopedia or publication, just like CIA worldfact book. Currently the 2001 statistics are accepted by the DoS and the parliament as the latest stats available. If the stats were flawed they wouldn't be accepted. I urge WP to maintain the status quo of DoS. And use the 2001 statistics until newer data is made available. When newer data contradicts older data; the newer data should be held true. even if the newer data is provisional we are not in a position to assess its validity. Distributor108 (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC) My Suggested changes of data as follows in relation to Option 2 or 1
((12 986.6 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((1 312.9 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((1 435.9 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((1 035.7 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((150.2 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((8.4 / 16 929.7) * 100) = 100 ReferenceSource
Jurisdiction of DoSPurview
The DoS has taken steps to amend the Census Ordinance and the Cabinet of Ministers has given approval to do the amendments as required. The amendments were sent to the Legal Draftmans Department for drafting the new bill which will then be submitted to the Parliament. Selected ordinances
My No.: 14/CPH/GEZ/2011. THE CENSUS ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 143) Order under section 2 BY virtue of the powers vested in me by Section 2 of the Census Ordinance (chapter 143) I, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Minister of Finance and Planning, direct that a Census of Population and Housing of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka be taken in year Two Thousand and Eleven. Reference: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=1655_8E&gp=CensusOrdinance&tpl=3 Is it compulsory to provide my information to the census enumerator?Yes, The Census Ordinance provides legal authority to the Department of Census and Statistics to carry out the census while the same ordinance obligates every person to answer census questions to the best of his/her knowledge and ability. During census enumeration, a representative from each and every household is asked to answer the questions on the Census form. If you do not answer the questions, the Director General of Census and Statistics as the Census Superintendent has the power to direct you to provide the information. If you fail to provide such information this, you have a legal obligation to comply. Reference: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=FAQ#Q3 Is my information going to be provided to the others?No! The DoS under the Census Ordinance is legally bound to protect the confidentiality of the information collected on individuals/household at the census. Neither a government agency nor any other organization will be given data about an individual person or a household. Reference: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=FAQ#Q4 Also see: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/databases/data%20dissemination/DataDissaPolicy_2007Oct26.pdf regarding Data Dissemination policy Micro-data Dissemination policy of the Department of Census and Statistics (DCS) Under the Statistical ordinance, micro data cannot be released with identifications for public use. Procedures are in place to ensure that information relating to any particular individual person, household or undertaking will be kept strictly confidential and will not be divulged to external parties. Information on individual or individual household/establishment will not be divulged or published in such a form that will facilitate the identification of any particular person or establishment as the data have been collected under the Census/Statistical ordinance, according to which the information at individual level cannot be divulged and such information is strictly confidential. Therefore, all direct identifiers will be removed (name, address, ID number, business name, reference number, telephone number etc.) before the release of the data file. The following rules apply to micro data released by the Department of Census and Statistics.
Government Institutions/Semi Government Institutions, Recognized Universities, Students engaged in higher studies and selected international agencies are entertained. However, the Data users are required to strictly adhere to the terms stipulated in the agreement form.
sole authority of releasing data is vested with the DG, DCS. DCS of Sri Lanka reserves sole right to approve or reject any data request made depending on the confidential nature of the data set and intended purpose of the study or analysis.
DCS for this purpose (Form D.R.1). The agreement form should be filled in triplicate and the study/project proposal should accompany the filled agreement form. If requests are made for the micro data of more than one survey, a separate agreement should be signed.
Head/Dean/Supervisor, recommending the issue of data, should also be accompanied.
The release of the full data file is considered only after reviewing the draft report prepared on the basis of the 25% sample data file.
mentioned in the agreement form and shall not be used for any other purpose without the prior approval of the Director General of the DCS. Moreover, Copies of the micro-data file, obtained from the DCS, shall not be given to anyone else without the prior written approval of the Director General of the DCS.
to the DCS and the concurrence of the DG, DCS, should be obtained before publishing it. Once published, a copy of the final report should be submitted to the DCS. Note:- Agreement form for releasing Micro data files (D.R.1 Form) can be obtained from the Head office of the Department of Census and Statistics, located at No. 15/12, Maitland Crescent, Colombo 07. Download Agreement from (D.R.I) for micro-data release: D.R.I Form For further details regarding the releasing of micro data, please contact: Mrs. Thiloka de Silva (Statistician) on 2682176, e-mail: [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Jurisdiction of Cambridge factfinder( Mr David) to conduct 1993 census
Assessing validity and integrity of factfinder census. Is it compulsory to answer david's questions?Answer here please- Thank you. If answer is NO. Then i politely decline to answer his questions; therefore this census is invalid. Is my information going to be provided to the others?Answer here please- Thank you. If answer is Yes. Yo David can you tell me where my ex girlfriend lives!, shes hiding from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Closing note: Three neutrals, Mr. Stradivarius, Ravensfire, and myself, have given their opinions that the Cambridge Factfinder data is preferable. One editor, Distributor108, rejects that position. The discussion has reached a stalemate and is no longer productive, so I am closing it as unresolved. Any parties wishing further dispute resolution on this matter should take it to either the Mediation Cabal or, preferably, to a request for comments posted through the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Sri Lanka Armed Forces
| Closed - no discussion on talk page. I do see one comment there, but that doesn't make a discussion - please wait for a reply and try and solve your dispute amicably before you bring it here. This noticeboard is only for when reasonable attempts to address the issues on a talk page have failed. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Wikipedia is not a gossip channel or place of discussion. It is an encyclopedia to published only proven content. war crimes allegation is not a proven content. This content should be removed. Users involved
Yes
Resolving the dispute
Futile discussion at talk page.
Inform Obi2canibe (talk · contribs) WP is not a gossip or discussion channel. That it is an encyclopedia, if he wishers to discuss/gossip, indicate to him to take this discussion to a forum that will accommodate him. Distributor108 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Sri Lanka Armed Forces discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Haven (TV series)
| Progress is being made in this dispute, but slowly, and this noticeboard isn't the place for long drawn-out discussion. This case would benefit from being mediated, in my opinion; I think it would save you both a lot of time and effort. I suggest filing a request for informal mediation at the Mediation Cabal. If you need help with filing, or want more advice, please ask me on my talk page. All the best - Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Dispute overview
I am dealing with an editor who has done a lot of work on Haven (TV series) and Haven-related articles, and am encountering a lot of resistance to changes. I am not going to go so far as to suggest an OWNership issue, but it's swiftly moving in that direction. To whit, the editor seeks to include just about every reference to the works of Stephen King alluded to in the series (which is a lot, but at least three editors thus far have considered it a load of trivia). I sought to bridge the gap and stop the revert-warring (of which I was admittedly a part) by converting the list to prose and trimming out all but the more prominent references. I even found two citable reference to X-Files, which the editor removed. Indeed, the editor went right up to the "electric fence" yesterday, and flat out drove over it today (eight reverts). The recent edits by the author seem like sour grapes, and I am running out of ideas on how to respond. Users involved
Yes. (Clerk-ish note by Danger (talk))
Resolving the dispute
I have sought to engage the user in both usertalk page dialog (regarding interpersonal frictions) as well as the more conventional article discussion page. I have also reworked the material to reflect the larger portion of what the other user wants up to the limits of concensus, but they insist on including every bit of information they have ever added to the article as far as references to Stephen King's works are concerned. Additionally, the user doesn't seem to understand NOT, OWN, RS or AGF to a degree consistent with communal editing. I'm at my wits' end; I was going to report the user's behavior at AN/I, and it was suggested that I seek to resolve the matter here first.
Not sure you can, but if you cannot, its off to the AN/I page for more stringent measures that don't really involve a happy resolution for at least one of the users here. Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Haven (TV series) discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I see this dispute has made its way to AN3. Let's wait to hear the outcome of that discussion before deciding anything here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I think I need to comment here. The first edit by Jack Sebastian was the reduction of a section comprising a paragraph and a series of dot-pointed references to Stephen King works (see here) to the paragraph and one dot point (here). This edit was done ostensibly for lack of citations and the claim of original research. I returned much of the material, supplying relevant reliable sources, ie the company that provides the program.[7] The editor proceeded to revert to his edit three times. He finally made a constructive edit,[11] which I took this as a positive step. I then removed a piece of trivia about X-Files being mentioned in the show, which the editor tried to justify by offering user-edited material as his sources. [12] [13] I then responded with my own version in two steps reinserting what I considered the more useful of the excised material, ie leaving much of it out.[14][15] Yet above he makes this strange assertion: "the editor seeks to include just about every reference to the works of Stephen King alluded to in the series". Jack Sebastian reverted to his last constructive edit three times instead of another constructive edit showing a willingness to compromise to find consensus. As I have said to the editor, I have no personal interest in the Stephen King material: I don't find him a noteworthy writer. I didn't put much of the material there, merely attempted to give some coherence to it by adding the introduction and editing the material. However, the show is steeped in elements that draw on his work, so, if one is going to have a section that deals with it, it needs to be non-trivial. Jack Sebastian seems to have taken ownership of the section and will not be guided by the protocols of WP:BRD. He has taken me to task twice for being ready to violate 3RR (see my talk page), while having made the first of each revert sequence. In the last few days I have received more user talk from Jack Sebastian than I have from everyone else for the rest of the three years I've been editing. The last comment re 3RR came less than an hour before the editor decided he had to lodge this dispute. What I am dealing with here is hard to understand as the simple matter of an editing conflict.
I also am not sure. I was looking for an administrator who might discuss the matter, when this dispute resolution was lodged. I feel that there is difficulty understanding the notion of compromise, especially in the editing process, ie a reversion to before the last constructive edit is not Wiki compromise in any sense. Perhaps, a few objective opinions on the matter might help us both. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I have some advice for both of you before we start: please keep your posts short. Very long posts do not make for productive discussion. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC) My second thought is that we need to determine the reliability of the sources being used. Having a look through the reliable sources noticeboard archives, eeggs.com was regarded as being basically a self-published source, so we can't use it. Some of TV.com's material is written by staff writers, so using that may be ok, but the material in question here is from a user-generated portion of the site, which we definitely cannot use. Syfy hasn't come up yet on the noticeboard, and I'm not sure if it would be permissible or not. I can't find anything on how they generate their material or their editorial process, but the videos in question do look like they are produced by staff, and I see that they also have a magazine which is a good sign that they have an editorial board which vets facts. I think I'll make a new post on the reliable sources noticeboard and see what the reaction is. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Questions re Haven editQuestions for Jack Sebastian:
The first issue involves whether the X-Files reference has any serious value to the show, while the other two deal with material that I consider useful for people to know about the series. If we are left with a section that is about King's influence on the series and its writers and about 99% of the total references are to King, what is wrong with calling the section "Stephen King in Haven"? The title presently used is "References to other works" an invitation to trivia and not very indicative of the contents when it is mostly about Stephen King anyway except for an overlong piece of trivia concerning an oblique reference to Fox Mulder. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The next time you make a personal attack, we're done here. It might be done anyway, because you appear far more interested in preserving your "ego" than improving the article. My spirit of compromise went out the window when you started edit-warring. I see absolutely no change in your behavior or even your perception of your behavior: Case in point (from AN3R):
You do not see your behavior as even wrong. I find that boggling, and rather indicative of the sorts of users who contribute usefully for a bit and then flame out when they feel their brilliance isn't appreciated enough by the plebeian masses. Here is the short of it:
Considering these factors, I am not sure how DR is going to work. I've compromised enough; I'll wait for a better X-Files citation before re-adding the info to the article. I recognize that I should have been more thick-skinned when the other user reverted like doing so was worth a dollar, failing to use the talk page. I readily admit to allowing the other user to goad me along.
Edit changes
(Red: insertion; Green: cut) Several allusions to the written works of author Stephen King are made in the series regularly;[] the series itself being based upon King's novella, "The Colorado Kid". On Syfy's Haven website, many of these references are pointed out as they occur in each episode. For example, Derry and the titular Haven are both fictional cities in Maine previously used in the author's stories.[] Other references abound: one of the main characters receives a copy of a novel written by a character from King's novel, Misery,[] while another character has just been released from Shawshank Prison.[] In some cases the plot of an episode revolves around an idea from the work of King: a character who has visions on touching people, but is unable to act upon them;[] or plants that start killing people.[] Many other, less noticeable references occur in the form of street names, characters and scenes reminiscent of either books by King or films based upon said works. Syfy notes, "It is a particular favorite Stephen King book for the Haven writers and producers".[] For example, in "A Tale of Two Audreys", a little boy in a yellow rain slicker is seen outside the church chasing a newspaper boat that he has set in the stream in the gutter. He chases until it falls down into a stormdrain on Witcham Street. He then sticks his right arm down into the drain and screams. The scene can be found in the opening chapter of the book.[] Also derived from It, episode "Fear and Loathing" revolves around a Troubled person who (unwillingly) takes the form of a person's worst fear, and in one instance appears as a clown, a visual allusion to Pennywise of the film version of It.[] As well, at least one reference has been made to the 1993-2002 FOX television series, The X-Files. One of the characters, an FBI agent, mentions a "spooky" agent who believed in UFO's and aliens. Another character states that he thought the guy was onto something, but that he went too far around the bend during the last few years, a reference to Fox Mulder, a lead character from that series.[]
Stephen King editing data
Like I said, Hell will start selling popsicles before that happens, Ian. If you are looking to massage your bruised ego, look elsewhere. Move on. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
If the parties hope to receive assistance here they will maintain civility or the discussion will be closed as nonproductive. Discuss edits, not editors, only. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that we have had an awful lot of discussion but not got an awful lot done. I think a change of venue might be appropriate - would both of you be willing to undergo informal mediation? There is no obligation to undergo further mediation at all, but I think that in this case it might be useful. What do you think? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Alfred Powell Morgan
| No dispute. Simple request for assistance. Please relist at the Editor assistance noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
He was my grandfather. The article states that he had three sons. He actually had four, my father William 'Jack' Merritt Morgan being the first from a very short marriage. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
I would like to change the article to state that he had four sons. Who's Who in America lists my father as one of his sons. I'm assuming that would be sufficient verification. However, if you need more information I will be happy to provide what I have. MerrileeMorgan (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Alfred Powell Morgan discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Real-time MRI, MRI
| Insufficient discussion by parties. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
reverts because of conflict of interests Users involved
Hi all, I need some help/advise. I am a scientist working in the field of MRI. We recently contributed some real-time MRI movies under a free license and added them to some articles. An editor reverted my edits to real-time MRI and related pages, because I have a conflict of interest (COI). This is of course true: we are proud of our work and would love to see it on wikipedia. On the other hand, I have read the policy concerning COI and it seems that it explictly allows edits by scientist and also especially encourages the addition of media files. It would be nice if somebody could review our reverted edits and restore it if it is approved. If you think our contributions are not appropriate for wikipedia, it would be nice to tell me why or what could possibly be changed. The reverted edits are by me and my colleague Shuo Zhang to the articles real-time MRI, the real-time MRI section in MRI, and in temporomandibular joint. On a general note, I feel that the way this was handled by the respective editor is not exactly in the best interest of wikipedia. Looking at his contributions and talk page, it seems to be his mission to revert spam, advertisement and all edits which he identifies as coming from editors with a COI. While I understand that it is important work to remove spam and advertisement from wikipedia, it do not feel that linking to your own scientific work is on the same level as adding a link to your own commercial web page selling viagra. Speaking for me, if had known before that my contributions would be simply be reverted in - as I feel it - hostile way (without at least a small explanation or a word of apology), I would not have convinced my employer to contribute the movies under a free license to be used on wikipedia.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I tried to discuss this on the talk page of MrOllie
Martin.uecker (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Real-time MRI, MRI discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Closing note: The instructions for this noticeboard say:(Emphasis added.) Feel free to re-list the dispute if discussion does not solve the dispute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) (as clerk) 13:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Morrissey "image and politics" section
| Closing as stale. I will reopen this thread if any of the participants wish. Please leave a message on my talk page to let me know if this is the case. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Morrissey's relationship to his fanbase is extremely important and central to his enduring appeal. While there is a large amount of information on the unfounded allegations of racism and his sexuality, as well as on 'feuds' within the industry and minutiae, very little content there relates to his relationship with his fans and his online fanbase, the intensity of which is unique to Morrissey. I have provided a good, well-sourced overview of Morrissey's relationship with his fans which is not disputed. Unfortunately the same individual (former IP) repeatedly deletes (censors) any mention of Morrissey's online fanbase, which is crucially important. Morrissey has written about his fansites on numrous occasions, mentioned them in interviews, thrown fansite owners out of concerts and worn t shirts urging his fans to "f***" a particular website. He may also be the victim of an internet hoax/parody, which he has written about three times in 3 or 4 months. When I include this very pertinent detail, former IP repeatedly deletes the content, citing 'poor references' (untrue - the references are good and many other items on 'Morrissey' have NO citation) - and 'trivial' again not true, as proven by morrissey's repeated actions drawing attention to his fansites and criticising them, it is far from trivial. He does not seek to compromise, but rather repeatedly deletes content, even when I repeatedly attempt to reduce the content, he simply deletes it. I also have concerns that this individual has a conflict of interests, being a moderator on one of the websites Morrissey has repeatedly criticised. Users involved
Compromise should be sought first - as I did. This user has not compromised but instead has repeatedly deleted a salient addition.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
This is my first step
I am new to this site, please help. I am now informed after all this typing it must be discussed on the talk page, which I do not understand. Friendlyfan4 (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Morrissey, Image and Politics discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Hi Friendlyfan4, and thank you for your post. Before we get on to the details of the content that you added, I would like to ask about the conflict of interest of which you speak. While being involved with a fan site about Morrissey would not necessarily mean that an editor would have a conflict of interest with the Morrissey article on Wikipedia, the same would not be true for material about the fan site itself. This is quite a serious accusation and I think it would change the manner in which we would deal with this dispute. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Portuguese language
| Closing as stale. I will re-open this dispute if any of the editors involved wish - please leave a note on my talk page if this is the case. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
User PedroPVZ constantly cleans my attempts to correct the beginning of the article, where it is said that Portuguese "is a Romance language that arose in Northern Portugal and spread, with the Reconquista, to Southern Portugal". In fact, Portuguese was born in Galicia, which included the present-day Northern Portugal: the southern part of Galicia, called "County of Portugal", become independent and then it spreaded the language to the south. See the articles "County of Portugal" and "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Portuguese_language#Galician-Portuguese_period". The arguments of user PedroPVZ to exclude any mention of Galicia are purely political and doesn't respect the historical data. I have a degree in Galician Philology and gave PedroPVZ some citations of famous linguists (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PedroPVZ), but he rejects any explanation. He wants Portuguese language to be born just in Northern Portugal and unfortunately it's impossibe go ten centuries back and change History. It's not the first time user PedroPVZ changes this item, as you can see in the history of the article. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I tried to talk with PedroPVZ.
Please keep Wikipedia a serious place with contributions of specialists of each area. Susomoinhos (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Portuguese language discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Hi Susomoinhos, and thank you for posting here! I think PedroPVZ probably reverted your addition because you didn't provide a reliable source for it. If you have a look at Wikipedia's policy of verifiability then you will see that there needs to be a reliable source for any claim which is contested or which is likely to be contested. The fact that your addition was removed doesn't necessarily have any bearing on its accuracy - it just reflects the fact that you added it without a source to back up your claim. If you can find a source that directly backs up what you said, then it is much more likely to make it into the article. Also, please understand that this is no judgement on the dispute, but I'm afraid we can't have a discussion here about your dispute until it has been discussed on Talk:Portuguese language. There really needs to be discussion on a talk page somewhere before we can take a dispute here. I suggest you start a new discussion on Talk:Portuguese language and post back here if the discussion stalls. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I see that there has been some discussion at User talk:Pignoof#Lingua portuguesa, but it looks like it is in Portuguese. Would anyone be willing to summarize the arguments being made? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your interest. The discussion about the article has been between user PedroPVZ and me. I'll open a discussion in Talk:Portuguese language, as you have suggested. Here are some reliable sources of the origins of Portuguese, which I wrote to user PedroPVZ on his talk page User talk:PedroPVZ: -"Portuguese is the literary language of Portugal, its possessions and Brazil. It is based, originally, in the dialect of Galicia (northwest corner of the Peninsula), an area which has always remained connected to the Astur-Leonese crown (and, later, Castilian) and now belongs to the field of Spanish written language. The Galician border march in the south, along the mouth of the Douro, which in 1095 became independent as county (kingdom from 1139) of Portugal, had already taken in the mid XII century the reconquest of Portugal until the current southern border, and spread by these border territories the Galician dialect, which was used in the Middle Ages in the lyric also in the Castilian-speaking territory." (LAUSBERG, Heinrich, Linguística românica, Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisboa, 1981). The translation is mine. -"The Galician-Portuguese language began to be spoken in a region covering Galicia and northern Portugal." (MIRA MATEUS, Helena, e outras, Gramática da língua portuguesa, Caminho, Lisboa, 2003. The translation is mine. -"Portuguese, as we have already seen, developed as a concomitant of the southward movement of speakers of Galician, with which as a result it still has the closest of affinities." "Galician, from which Portuguese ultimately derives (...)" (HARRIS, Martin e VINCENT, Nigel, The Romance Languages, Croom Helm, Beckenham, 1988) Thanks again. Susomoinhos (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC) I want to draw your attention to the arguments of PedroPVZ for deleting my contribution (and similar contributions of other people). Here you are an excerpt of our discussion we had in Portuguese; he said: "I know Galicia since I exist as a person. Although Galicia is now more Castilian than Galician and some have even seeming vain of it, you have to see Castilian as we see Portuguese standard, it's a different reality than the one that exists in Portugal, Brazil and even Africa! But what you're doing is a perversion, although the Galician and Portuguese variant of Vulgar LATIN in the Middle Ages were already variants of the same language, but that does not validate to be adding things about the Kingdom of Galicia in the article of the Portuguese language. Portugal doesn't owe its language to the Spanish Galicia, and that's what you are implying, and this is false and has another name! There is a relationship of direct dependence of the language between North and South (where they added something to the language) and Brazil and Africa (where additions were also made), but putting Galicia into this is ... A linguistic relationship with Galicia, whether or not it's the same language, does not matter. The only place Portugal owe (by dependence) its language to is Rome." (I don't want to make any comment about his recommendations about the language we have to speak in Galicia according to his opinion). As you can see, his motives are not linguistic (that is, related to the external history of the language), but motivated by his personal political and cultural ideas and concepts. Susomoinhos (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Volunteer (Irish republican)
| Closing - referred to the original research noticeboard. Two neutral parties have given their opinion, but the dispute is still on-going. Please note that advice given here is not binding, but it can be used to count towards consensus on the issues involved. My preferred method of resolving this would be via an RfC, but as the participants feel that an RfC would take too long, I recommend taking this to the original research noticeboard to get more outside opinions. If that fails to bring a resolution, we can refer it to other dispute resolution steps as necessary. I will be happy to give further advice on my talk page. All the best, Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I removed this section from this article per WP:TOPIC. Domer48 reverted it citing that "The Volunteers were and became Republicans". I asked them for evidence for this on the articles talk page and they have failed to provide any. I am vindicated in removing the section from the article as it fails WP:TOPIC and is irrelevant to the article. Domer48 has failed to answer my questions and my requests for evidence:
Domer48's only response other than requesting sources to the contrary, was to edit the article to add in more examples of the Volunteers growing nationalistic ideas, and their desire for legislative independence for Ireland from England. Additions that don't say or substantiate that they were republicans. Thus Domer48 is violating WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR His additions alone do not equate to Irish republicanism or even republicanism, especially as the Volunteers declared their loyalty to the British Crown at the very same convention that they declared their desire for legislative independence from England (this is sourced in the article). Home rule and nationalism do not equate to republicanism even if they do share many facets. All his additions have done is increase the amount of irrelevant information in the article. If they were republicans, i'm sure it would be documented somewhere - so far no evidence at all.
Domer48 simply refuses to engage in proper discussion of the content issue, rather stating over and over again "Sources please", when they are the one that has to provide sources to prove their relevance to the article. They also appear to be persuing synthesis and original research in the article itself to try to imply their viewpoint is correct.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I took the issue to the article's talk page. Domer48 has refused to answer the questions put forward to him so that he can prove his stance on the matter. Rather they have responded "Sources please". I also made a comment on their talk page however they removed it without a response. I then took it to AN/I where an editor suggested i take it here. Update - Domer48 has since responded with poorly based and easily countered ad hominem statements.
To judge whether:
Mabuska (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Volunteer (Irish republican) discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Let me see if I have understood the issues here correctly. Domer48 added the "18th century Irish Volunteers" section to the article, and claims that these volunteers are directly related to the the subject of the article - the modern use of the term Volunteers, referring to the members of Irish republican paramilitary organisations. In his own words from the edit summary in this edit, "The Volunteers were and became Republicans". Mabuska contests this claim, with the arguments outlined above, and also says that there is no source in the section that links the 18th century use to the modern use. It seems that the accuracy of the section in general is not under dispute, merely the accuracy of the first sentence, which claims "The original use of the term 'Volunteer' in this context dates back to the 18th century Irish Volunteers" (my italics). Would you both agree that this an accurate summary of what you are not agreeing on? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Domer48 has now finally provided a source in an attempt to back up their claims - a single source dated to 1842, and on that i don't have the good faith to believe they have kept the context of the source intact, most notably because of the "..." and the glaring grammatical issue in his source quote that highlights a possible deception on Domer48's behalf with regards to this source:
So what exactly is this actual quote saying if you look at it closely? The source is a book about the United Irishmen, an actual republican organisation. The entire exerpt provided by Domer48 reads as: the editor is stating what they say is consistent with truth in regards to the what United Irishmen spanned ideologically, whilst stating that it is inconsistent to state it for the Volunteers. Thus it is not stating the Volunteers contained republicanism. Nice try. Also is the quote even in the source? Not according to searches of the 1846 edition of the book and the original 1842 edition (parent link being [52]. Why is this Domer48? Nothing that contradicts this source and quote that i added to the article which Domer48 has failed to counter or prove wrong: Duffy, Sean (2005). A Concise History of Ireland. p. 133-134. ISBN 0717138100. "Quote: We know our duty to our Sovereign, and are loyal. We know our duty to ourselves, and are resolved to be free. We seek for our rights and no more than our rights". Loyal to their sovereign. How can republicans, especially Irish republicans be loyal to their sovereign, which was obviously the British Crown? Mabuska (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
In fact this is what i think the article could contain at this moment if we include Domer48's source put into proper context. Compare that to the article at present and you'll see it removes the Domer48's recently added bloatedness of irrelevant information in the article keeping it firmly on topic per WP:TOPIC. Once Domer adds clarification as to what institution his source refers too, it can be added into the article and the clarification tag removed and the whole issue is done and dusted at long last! All this for something for simple. Mabuska (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that this discussion might benefit from wider community input. How would you both feel about taking this to an RfC? You will be able to go through all the details of this in an RfC, which isn't really practical on this noticeboard where space is necessarily limited. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
IRELAND IN '98, J. BOWLES DALY, 1888
I'll just post these additional sources up to knock this discussion on the head. Again, they do in fact illustrate that the points I made above were and are indeed correct. "Arthur Griffith later wrote that the declaration in favour of Irish unity by the mainly Protestant Irish Volunteers in 1782 annihilated earlier differences and created one nation. Amalgamation was still the official policy of the republican movement during the first Irish revolution." Ireland's Terrorist Dilemma Yonah Alexander, Alan O'Day, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1986, 9780898389128, Page. 170 "After the publication of another philippic against Government, a meeting of the United Irish of Dublin was dismissed by the sheriff, as persons holding seditious and republican views. Thus, in 1794, terminated the legal existence of the last of the Volunteers of 1782; convened, under their new name, two years and a half previously." The Croppy: A Tale of the Irish Rebellion of l798, John Banim, James Duffy, 1865, Page. 5 "If Irish nationalism dates from Strongbow, or even the Danes, Irish republicanism was an offspring of the Volunteers of 1782 and owes much to the external influences of the American and French revolutions." Fenians and Fenianism, Maurice Harmon, Scepter Publishers Limited, 1968, Page 65. Originally appearing in the Winter edition of the University Review, 1967. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 15:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Volunteers Section Break
Domer48 dont mistake rewording a sentence to what a source states as equating to me accepting it and that everything you've added is relevant. If i dd then why are we still here? Your rank arguemebt is purely semantics. What is a rank if not a description of members? Mabuska (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Moving onAs I'm fairly happy with the opening paragraph on the section titled 'Original usage of the term Volunteer' I'd be more than happy to remove most of the text and move it to Irish Volunteers (18th century) and build up that article. Thanks again for all your help,--Domer48'fenian' 08:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
When I suggested an RfC earlier it was mostly because that is a good way to determine a wider consensus on issues like this - it would side-step arguments about personal grievances and personal bias. For that reason that is the way forward I would choose here, although there are still other options you could choose. We could list a new post at the original research noticeboard to see what they say on the matter, or we could go to informal mediation - but only if you are both willing to be civil, stick with the process, and abide by the outcome. Whichever of these you choose, I'm afraid this dispute can't stay here, as this noticeboard is not the place for long, drawn-out disputes. Sorry for the rough treatment, but I hope you can both understand where I'm coming from. Yours — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 19:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Madhyamaka
| This dispute needs attention from an expert. Probably the best thing to do is file an RfC and advertise the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
There appears to be a new user 'LhunGrub', who is unwilling to listen, discuss, or compromise about the content of the article. He is merely reverting any changes to the article. Users involved
I am a longstanding but infrequent editor, and dispute resolution appears to be different every time some issue arises. This probably needs a 3rd party. It appears that LhunGrub doesn't know or understand WP:RS
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Opened up talks on the article and on his talk page.
Provide a 3rd party. 20040302 (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Madhyamaka discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. User is using typical boomerang behavior. The reference is sourced. I went out of my way to type some of it out on the discussion page, but I am not going to type out several pages worth. LhunGrub (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Clearly I disagree with this. I consider LhunGrub's contribution to be tantamount to original research. He has use a reference which does not substantiate his claims in the article. Moreover, he is focussing on a rather specific objection that occurs within the Tibetan academic tradition of Madhamaka, which is not particularly meaningful regarding the scope of a school of philosophy which covers several continents, many cultures, and about 1,900 years. (20040302 (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)) 20040302 and LhunGrub, I think you may find it hard to get uninvolved editors to weigh in on your conflict, as your disagreement is over a fairly arcane subject, and difficult to wade through everything to see what you are talking about. 20040302, it might be helpful if you include diffs of the edits that LhunGrub has made which you disagree with. I can see why the "distillation sentence was problematic, while worded as if it was an objective statement of fact, it was obviously non-neutral and pro Madhyamaka. Lhungrub, I suggest you stop with the accusations of "boomerang behavior" both here and in your edit summaries. I don't know if that is something you made up, or if you are trying to invoke WP:boomerang but it doesn't seem very descriptive of 20040302's behavior, so you look a bit foolish throwing it out, and at any rate it is not civil, so just stop. I suggest take a break from this article for a little while. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
When did you start this dispute resolution, like 5 SECONDS after I first replied to your discussion section (which was only created an hour before) on the talk page?? Regardless of the issues, your various actions are way off. LhunGrub (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Clerk's Caution (and PS re complexity): The instructions for this noticeboard say:Please maintain civility if you hope to obtain assistance here. Discuss edits, not editors, only. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) (as clerk) 13:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC) PS: I agree with Mmyers1976 regarding the complexity of this dispute. I'm afraid that you may not find a mediator here with the expertise needed to sort out the competing claims. (I know I couldn't figure it out.) If that turns out to be the case, you might consider asking for help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy or doing a request for comments using {{rfc|reli}} (or doing the RFC and dropping a note at the two projects asking for comments on the RFC). TM
|