 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Arabian Gulf - name vandalizing discussion
 | Closing as superfluous. We already have a discussion open on this topic; there is no need to have both. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Dispute overview
The user "Kamran the Great" is vandalizing the historic geographic name of the Arabian Gulf. You can see a large number of maps who call The Gulf for Arabian Gulf. I just want to change the name to "The Gulf". Please stop him.--Uishaki (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Just see here.
|
Stewart Nozette
| Closing as premature. See comments. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
In para 4 of Career section it states that Nozette was on the National Space Council under President George W. Bush. He was not, in spite of what the reliable source says. I worked at the Space Council for the entire period of its existence; part of my responsibility was personnel & therefore know for a fact he was never on the Council. I tried deleted the line, Username: Scapler put it back in citing, original research. In an effort to make the claim more factual, I added the word "purportedly worked on...". Scapler took that out as well. I bring this issue to the dispute process only because it is my understanding that Wikipedia strives to be a factual medium. Leaving the Nozette Career history as is violates this principle. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
sent a message to Scapler on Talk
Fina a way to correct the inaccuracy of the Career/National Space Council claim. Whysosirius (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Stewart Nozette discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Clerk comment: This seems to me like a classic case of WP:V. Whysoserious - you yourself said that the source provided was reliable ("...in spite of what the reliable source says."), so it would not be correct to remove it (it is, after all, relevant) unless you can provide sources to the contrary (your own experience does not count). If you question the reliability of the source, you should first discuss it on the article's talk page, and if that doesn't yield a solution, you should go to the reliable source noticeboard. Wikipedia does strive to be a factual medium, and the only way we can accomplish this is by verifying our information through reliable sources. We do not have any vested contributors, meaning that what you do outside of Wikipedia (i.e. working for the Space Council) doesn't influence whether material is included or not. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
|
Blue (LeAnn Rimes song), Blue (Bill Mack song)
| Closing as one or more of the following: Inappropriate venue to request page move, conduct not content dispute, other processes in progress (unexpired RFC at article page). — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Okay the main thing is none of the sources on the second page where it concerns Mack is reliable they can all be contradicted by more reliable sources on Billboard.com where I have found that Mack never once released the song as a single. Second of all it breaks the rules as Rimes is most commonly known for the song not Mack and worst an ADMIN started the page and should know better then that. But no matter what I've said I'VE been the one bashed for it because I won't let them break the rules. So if possible I'd rather have someone better in the matter and everything can be seen on the following pages, User:Kww, my archive and talk page, User:Moriori, User:Fastily is the one who suggested I do this so I am. Users involved
I do not want the 3 users mentioned in this dispute to make any comments as they have already bashed me enough. I don't need it. Swifty*talkcontribs 18:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
The page needs to be moved back to Blue (LeAnn Rimes song) and Blue (Bill Mack song) needs to be redirected to it. Swifty*talkcontribs 18:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Blue (LeAnn Rimes song), Blue (Bill Mack song) discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Clerk's note: It is not appropriate to ask that other editors involved in a dispute not comment here. If you are asking that a page be moved, then this is not the forum for that. See WP:RM for that purpose. If you're complaining about other user's conduct, then WP:ANI is probably appropriate. This forum is to attempt to settle content (only) disputes, ordinarily through discussion and compromise. I'm not going to close this request immediately because I'm not sure what you really want; if it's something other than obtaining a page move or discussing user conduct, please clarify below. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC) I just discovered that there is an unexpired RFC on this subject at the article page, so this is either filed at the wrong venue or violates the guidelines of this noticeboard limiting requests to content matters not undergoing other processes, so I'm closing it after all. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
|
Ooty
| Closing as stale. Further resolution on this topic can probably be obtained through WP:3O or WP:RFC. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Ooty is also a railway station and as such I added the article to [Category:Railway Stations in Tamil Nadu]. But one user Surajt88 dis-agrees with this category and has already reverted the category more than twice. Since I don't want to break 3 revert rule and so starting discussion here - as advised by him also. He says Ooty is not a railway station. It is a town. I wouldn't mind adding it to a category like Category:Towns with Railway stations in Tamil Nadu. to create a new category like [Category:Towns with Railway stations in Tamil Nadu] and is not ready to accept that a railway station will obviously will be place which is either a town or a village. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Please see Ooty Talk Page -[2]
Please advise if a town or village has railway station - Can we not just add the article to Category : Railway Station in XYZ. Jethwarp (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Ooty discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Where categories are concerned, I've looked at the discussion mentioned in the opening, and I'd like to know something. Ooty may be both a railway station and a town, but which is this article primarily about? If this article is about the town, and not specifically about the train station, I would say the train station category is likely inappropriate. The question: would a separate article about Ooty Railway Station meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? If so, perhaps Jethwarp can find reliable sources and write a separate article about the train station. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
But my original question still remains to be clarified. In India - many towns and villages are connected by railway station. It is not possible to create a Railway Station article for each and every town & village. For example - Brajrajnagar Railway Station is also a railway station, which is located in Brajrajnagar town. Further, this would lead way to creation of many hundreds of one line articles for railway station for each & every town / village, which I think should be avoided. Instead, just adding Category of railway station to an article of town / village - just gives the reader of article knowledge that okay - the town is connected by rail road also. Further, I am also not agreeable to Surajt88's suggestion given [[3]] of creating categories like Category:Towns with Railway stations in Tamil Nadu because this will lead to unnecessary categorization when Category:Railway stations in Tamil Nadu is already there. Further, there are villages also, which have rail road station, for that someone would suggest please create Category:Villages with Railway stations in Tamil Nadu, Category:Villages with Railway stations in Karnataka, Category:Towns with Railway stations in Karnataka & so on & so on leading to complex categories and complicating the matter further. Jethwarp (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC) (Comment from uninvolved editor) Yes, many towns in India are, I'm sure, connected by rail. However, not all of those railway stations are notable. As far as categories are concerned, it doesn't really make sense to categorize a town by something that's there in it. For instance, Martinsville is a town in Virginia, and its main secondary school is called Martinsville High School (which has a separate article). It wouldn't make sense to categorize the Martinsville article based on the school - even though the article might mention the school, the school has its own article. In other words, any categories pertaining to the school would be attached to the article about the school, not the town. Similarly, the article about the train station would have the train station categories, but categorizing the town article under railway stations wouldn't make sense. (And creating all of those off-the-wall categories would create unnecessary categorization.) Sleddog116 (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
|
The Mole (MC/producer)
| Closing as Wrong venue. The correct forum to request undeletion for articles is WP:DELREV (except proposed deletions and deleted articles with only the nominator participating).Curb Chain (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
This page was deleted due to the artist being "too obscure for Wikipedia". After a message was sent to the administrator TParis (who happens to be on Administrator Review), I received a response requesting that I send references proving the validity of the artist's worth. I sent a very large list of references, and have received no reply. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
As mentioned prior, TParis requested references, which I gave, yet the page remains deleted. It is extremely disheartening, as an independent artist, to see my long track record disappear from the internet, not only on Wikipedia but in a very large number of web sites dating back to 1999. The fact that this page, which I did not create by the way, was deleted due to obscurity, is yet another kick in the face to someone who has purposefully remained independent, turning down deals, for moral reasons, from Sony, Virgin, and others. I feel like Wikipedia is supposed to represent the free press, which is rapidly dwindling. And to delete a page due to an artist's "obscurity" seems not only unnecessary but counter to what is purported to be a system of interoperability. I have changed my stage names numerous times over the years and represented a variety of relatively short-lived collectives, thereby making my name difficult to track, but I believe that an honest search for terms such as "The Mole", "Th' Mole" "DJ 0.000001", "Magical Bass" and "Motion Recordings" should give some idea of the validity and influence of my work. I have worked prominently with many non-commercial labels and organizations including Magical Bass, Motion Recordings, The Motherboard, New Cocoon, Hectic Records, Daly City Records, Fresh yO!, Anti-Party Records, Chickenhed, Vaatican Records, SPAZ, Iceberg, Circuitry Audio, Diseased Records, Paramanu Records, Milled Pavement Records, Ramadon Recordings, and others. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you.
Please re-instate said Wiki page, considering above-mentioned points. 69.230.109.25 (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC) The Mole (MC/producer) discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Richard F. Cebull
| Closing as Insufficient discussion. If you want an opinion on content, you can use WP:30 or WP:RFC. You state that you have disucussed the issue but you have only requested Bbb23 (talk · contribs) not to " ... remove appropriate, well-sourced, informative, relevant information from Wikipedia articles as you did here".Curb Chain (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Cebull is in the news for forwarding an email about Obama. I tried to add a clause about the content of the email. Users on the talk page have offered a series of changing arguments as to why the content should not be added to the article. These arguments include: I have misunderstood the joke; there is no agreement about what the joke means; "there are BLP issues involved here"; the article doesn't contain enough detail about other aspects of the bio; and "that's three voices compared to one". Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Please review the suggested addition and advise whether it is an appropriate addition to the article. — goethean ॐ 01:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Richard F. Cebull discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Jeremy Lin
| Closing as abandoned. Requesting editor has not returned from 24-hr block, if they return they can drop a note on my talk page if they wish to reopen this listing. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Whether certain quotes in the Jeremy Lin article should be quoted boxed. Users involved
Editors may take note of Muboshgu's pattern of disruptive editing behaviour [5], [6], [7] of adding disputed content without explaining them on talk page, in violation of WP:REVEXP.Festermunk (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Extensive discussion on this issue on Jeremy Lin's talk page and a request for third opinion that hitherto has remain unanswered.
To help determine whether or not the quotes in dispute should be quote boxed. Festermunk (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Jeremy Lin discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Please consult the 3RR notice board. Editor in question doesn't like our consensus on the page in question, and after some attempt to discuss, devolved into edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Clerk's note: The issue of whether anyone has or has not edit warred is not an appropriate subject of discussion here, per the guidelines of this noticeboard. Please refrain from making any comments upon or evaluations of any other user's conduct. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 18:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Festermunk has been blocked at 18:12, 7 March 2012 with a duration of 24 hours for Edit warring: Jeremy Lin. Table the discussion till the OP is able to respond Hasteur (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC) I fully concur with my colleague Hasteur's suggestion and believe than nothing further should occur here until Festermunk returns from his block and indicates that he wishes to continue this discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 18:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC) There does not appear to be any policy or guideline violations ( edit-warring aside) in the dispute. Editors should understand that consensus is not always unanimous.—Bagumba (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
|
Jim Higgins (Irish politician)
| Not yet ripe for this venue. No substantial conversation on article talk page, nor on any other talk page. Hasteur (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
User "Snappy" constantly deleting both material relevant to the public figure in question and the picture that accompanies the article. Users involved
This is ongoing hand has been occurring for over 18months
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Yes - reverted to original posts and requested Snappy to desist.
View picture inad information Snappy is deleting and decide if it is superflous. 86.42.187.164 (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Jim Higgins (Irish politician) discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Rhino tank
| Closing as abandoned, drop a note on my talk page if you care to have this reopened, but frankly appears on first blush to have reliable sources and consensus against filer's position though additional study would be needed to say that for sure. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
This dispute relates to the “Rhino Tank” M-4 Sherman Tank variant. EyeSerene insists on reverting the text to read “Hedgerows” when these were, in fact, Brocage. This is no mere semantical difference; A hedgerow implies these were thin, spindly affairs that should have been breachable with mere machetes (or even bayonets), whereas a bocage is a wall of rocks and other rubble built up over hundreds of generations that served to clear the fields of said rubble and to hold water for irrigation. This is the difference between a rock wall (these are said to have inspired later HESCO Barriers) versus barbed wire; The rock walls (think about those words, “Rock Walls”) would stop bullets, men, and even vehicles. Attempts to penetrate these rock walls were generally unsuccessful (including using tanks to punch a small hole into the walls, into which “spent artillery shells” though who’s exactly wasn’t mentioned filled with high explosive were shoved), at the cost of an average of 2.3 sappers (demolitions guys) per wall; In each and every such wall addressed, at least one sapper died, and in many of them teams of two died as teams. The use of the word “hedgerow” thus denigrating those who faced these improvised fortresses. It has been pointed out that the rock walls were topped by hedgerows, but these were actually wild thickets. Personally, I’m inclined to let the particularities in this regard drop; As long as the nature of the defenses (high thick rock walls, not spindly ornamental bushes) is correctly addressed. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Please see Rhino Tank Talk Page -[11]
Explain in small words the difference between a “hedgerow” (thicket) and a brocage (a rock wall that may or may not be topped by a thicket) to EyeSerene. Explain to him that the stupidity of Americans really doesn’t change the facts- This was a deadly fortress, not a briar patch. Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Rhino tank discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Thirugnana Sambandar
| Article talk page discussion is a prerequisite for filing a request at this noticeboard. Please discuss the issue there first. Lord Roem (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I barely know what is occuring. I see reverts of original research, "POV pushing", and unexplained removal of references. I am an uninvolved editor who is reporting this. Users involved
If they understand English well, you can use it. Otherwise, find someone who understands their native or other fluent language.
Yes in English.
Resolving the dispute
George Ho (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Thirugnana Sambandar discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Metrication in the United Kingdom
| There is not a dispute here, rather one editor's failure to accept consensus. The discussion on the article talk page has been closed and further rejection of this consensus should result in DeFacto (talk · contribs) being re-blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
There is a disagreement as to whether a consensus has been achieved to delete a paragraph from the article (see Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#Proposed removal of the whole Asda story). Some editors believe that it has been achieved because there is a significant majority wanting it deleted. At least one editor believes it has not, because the discussion was cut short, and consensus declared, before any negotiations on content or compromise wording had finished and before any dispute resolution process had been undertaken as per WP:Consensus. Users involved
The discussion has been acrimonious at times, with at least one user being ridiculed, disparaged and insulted. A false report of vandalism (to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism) drew administrator attention, resulting in one user being blocked, briefly, for edit warring. Resulting admin comments gave succour to those claiming a consensus had been reached. Threats of ANI action (for disruption) against at least one editor, by another, have been issued.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Discussed it on the talk page and had admin involvement.
We need a strategy to resolve this in accordance with the WP:Consensus policy as there is confusion, including amongst administrators, as to at what point a consensus can be declared to exist. -- de Facto (talk). 19:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Metrication in the United Kingdom discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
As an impartial admin whose only involvement here has been to block DeFacto (talk · contribs) for edit warring on this subject I have closed the discussion on the talk page. There is no dispute here - there is clear consensus and a case of WP:TE, specifically, a textbook case of WP:IDHT. If DeFacto continues to reject consensus, I will re-block him/her for disruptive editing. Toddst1 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
|