| Revision as of 10:37, 12 February 2013 editEarwigBot (talk | contribs)Bots406,171 editsm (Bot; Task 19): Updating 1 case.← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:13, 12 February 2013 edit undoCabe6403 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,216 edits →India: Closed as unsuitableNext edit → | ||
| Line 396: | Line 396: | ||
| == India == | == India == | ||
| {{DR case status}} <!-- Bot Case ID (please don't modify): 552 --> | {{DR case status|closed}} <!-- Bot Case ID (please don't modify): 552 --> | ||
| {{DRN archive top|reason=No evidence of discussion also filing editor is under an active topic ban on the subject after persistant disruptive editing on this subject <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font> <sup>(]•])</sup></font> 11:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| <!-- ] 10:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) --> | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | ||
| Line 425: | Line 423: | ||
| === India discussion === | === India discussion === | ||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please 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.</div>] (]) 10:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | <div style="font-size:smaller">Please 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.</div>] (]) 10:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| {{DRN archive bottom}} | |||
Revision as of 11:13, 12 February 2013
"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR. |
|
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button 
to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.
| Do you need assistance? | Would you like to help? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Request dispute resolution
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
|
Become a volunteer
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember:
|
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Imran Khan | Resolved | SheriffIsInTown (t) | 28 days, 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 5 days, 17 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 5 days, 17 hours |
| Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) | In Progress | Abo Yemen (t) | 23 days, 2 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 3 days, 6 hours | Manuductive (t) | 1 days, 14 hours |
| Movement for Democracy (Greece) | In Progress | 77.49.204.122 (t) | 14 days, 3 hours | Steven Crossin (t) | 5 days, 12 hours | Hellenic Rebel (t) | 5 days, 8 hours |
| Urartu | In Progress | Bogazicili (t) | 8 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 1 hours | Skeptical1800 (t) | 1 days, |
| Wesean Student Federation | On hold | EmeraldRange (t) | 6 days, 7 hours | Steven Crossin (t) | 6 days, 7 hours | Steven Crossin (t) | 6 days, 7 hours |
| Jehovah's Witnesses | In Progress | Clovermoss (t) | 5 days, 3 hours | Steven Crossin (t) | 4 days, 10 hours | Clovermoss (t) | 1 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Talk:PS/2 connector#.22...almost_all_desktop_computers_still_have_PS.2F2_ports.....22
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Jeh on 05:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC).
 | Participants reached agreement. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview (Here is a better link to the discussion within the article talk page. Due possibly to the "funny characters" in the section head the anchor link doesn't show up above --jeh) User Reisio (talk · contribs) objects to my application of a CN tag on a claim in the article. Reisio notes that, two years ago, he conducted a survey of product offerings from one distributor and his results support the claim. I maintain that, besides being two years old, this is blatant OR and as it is limited to just one distributor that is primarily in one market segment it is inconclusive anyway. Reisio is also claiming "consensus" support for his opinion, which seems to me to be unsupported by any possible interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS. I also believe that consensus (even if he had it) is not allowed to override WP:V or other core policies. No verifiability has been established for the claim in question, so I think a CN tag is completely defensible. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive talk page discussion. Reisio is now simply ignoring my cites of WP policy, saying I'm "not remotely interested in reason". Since my core argument is based on WP policies, if he chooses to ignore them, further direct discussion with him seems pointless. How do you think we can help? Reisio seemed very convinced that consensus, which he believes is established by a majority, could be a deciding factor. Perhaps if a few experienced editors point out that inclusion of a CN tag is fine and expected for uncited claims (thereby establishing what he thinks of as "consensus" against him), he will relent. Opening comments by ReisioPlease 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:PS/2 connector#.22...almost_all_desktop_computers_still_have_PS.2F2_ports.....22 discussionHi, I'm Carrie; I'm a volunteer here. I've looked at your comments here and the talk page discussion. As I understand it, the dispute is over whether a "citation needed" tag should be used on the sentence "PS/2 ports are included on most new motherboards."
In regard to consensus, it has been said in the discussion that "that's a numbers game" - I understand this as meaning that consensus is/can be determined by a majority. That is not in fact correct, according to the policy page, which says "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)." Having read the talk page, I do not agree that there is a consensus. (Certainly there is no consensus that there is a consensus!) As for whether a citation needed tag is appropriate, WP:Citation needed says: "anyone may question an un-cited claim by inserting a , , or tag." As far as I can see, the claim is un-cited, and I do not believe it falls under any of the categories in Template:Citation needed#When not to use this template.
CarrieVS (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
|
La Luz del Mundo
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by Fordx12 on 15:30, 5 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
- Fordx12 (talk · contribs)
- RidjalA (talk · contribs)
- Ajaxfiore (talk · contribs)
- WikiNuevo (talk · contribs)
- Darkwind (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
RidjalA believes that content in the Controversy section and the Discrimination section is not relevant or shouldn't be included. Such information provides other POV's to the accusations listed in the "Rape accusations" subsection of the article. He also wishes to include a source that has been declared unreliable or unusable by an RfC located here . A past RfC located here stated that the controversy section should be removed, or it should be merged with the Discrimination section and turned into a "Public image" section.
A past editor who started a dispute between Wikinuevo and Ajaxfiore brought about this discussion which has routes in a past dispute discussed in this noticeboard
RidjalA and Ajaxfiore do not agree on the location of the "Silver Wolf Ranch" subsection. One believes it to belong in the controversy section, another believes it to belong in another section as "Scrutiny." This is based on whether or not the Silver Wolf Ranch subsection is a "controversy."
I believe that the discrimination section should be refined for easier reading, and it does not have undue weight. All content described here is relevant and should be included in the rape accusation section, and that the controversy section should be changed as stated in the RfC. I believe that if a Public Image section is made, all sections in question would belong there.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have asked RidjalA on his talk page to refrain from discussing perepheral issues such as accusations against me and another of being part of a conspiracy and concentrate on the content here and his. The talk page, and its archives, is filled with ongoing discussions on the subject. I do not believe that we are able to respect each other's opinions and thus this DRN would help alleviate that issue.
How do you think we can help?
You can provide a fresh viewpoint by helping us consider the content in question. Is Silver Wolf Ranch section a controversy? Is the paragraph RidjalA mentioned irrelevant with the rape accusations subsection of the article? Is the Discrimination section in violation of any wiki policy? How should editing in these areas progress? How should we react in light of past RfC's mentioned here?
Your opinions, input, and mediation will help us respect a consensus as opposed to accusing each other.
Opening comments by RidjalA
Firstly, I'd like to thank you (Fordx12 and/or whoever else got this started) for issuing this resolution. I'll try to be as brief as possible.
The book in question is found at academic libraries like this one, so I don't know where they're getting the notion that this book is not a valid source nor that it was never published. Further, its findings are backed up by the L.A. Times. I'd like to point out that Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore have gone through suspiciously exhaustive lengths at discrediting this author (an initial rfc created by these two guys a few months back resulted in them being called out for the great lengths they've taken this here). Perhaps they should be a little more careful if they don't want to come off as being paid editors on behalf of La Luz del Mundo.
For the past year now, Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore have in an Orwellian fashion attempted to silence me for procluding their progress in ridding the article of its data and sources that bring to light numerous controversies. Certainly, like all other religious articles with their respective controversy sections, we have ensured that the information is balanced. So I don't agree that we should do away with this religion's controversy section.
As for the rfc to merge the controversy section with another section (or to do away with it altogether), no solid consensus was ever established; opinions were all over the place, and I'm not comfortable with Fordx12's hasty proclamation here that we should proceed to do away with the controversy section anyway.
And whether or not the Silver Wolf Ranch Controversy belongs in the controversy section has been established by an uninvolved 3o after Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore first attempted to remove that section. Here, that 3o helped us establish that there exists a "genuine controversy" surrounding Silver Wolf Ranch and that it should suffice for it to stay.
Finally, the antithesis to the controversy section that these guys created (the "Discrimination" section) is loosely based on quarrels between locals and church members following a political disagreement, and not about religious-based discrimination like the section tries to convey. There's undue weight there in my opinion. Same goes for this chunk of info here.
Respectfully yours, RidjalA (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Ajaxfiore
There's no need to discuss matters that have already been solved by RfCs such as the reliability of Jorge Erdely as a source (by the way, the source RidjalA mentions was not the source in question). The content that RidjalA wants to remove is relevant, and should remain. In response to RidjalA's accusations, I have never attempted to remove the Silver Wolf Ranch or the Controversy section, and have in fact expanded it.
Note: I have opened a case at AN/I regarding the conduct of RidjalA. -- Ajaxfiore (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by WikiNuevo
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.Opening comments by Darkwind
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.I am only tangentially involved; WikiNuevo (t c) posted on my talk page requesting me to look into the situation on the page, specifically regarding his contributions being reverted. I'm not sure why he reached out directly to me -- possibly he saw an administrative action I took at AIV or something. I saw that both he and Ajaxfiore (t c) had violated 3RR, and that neither user's edits were clear vandalism, so as an uninvolved admin, I blocked both for 24 hours as a consequence. I took no position on the content dispute, and still have no position regarding that (and for that reason, I am not likely to participate further in this filing). —Darkwind (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
La Luz del Mundo discussion
Please 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.- I will take a look at this tomorrow night. If any other volunteer wants to take a look too at any given time before I do, s/he is welcomed to do so. Regards. — ΛΧΣ 03:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. I have read a bit. I will read another bit before asking some questions. — ΛΧΣ 14:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. I think I can start this tomorrow. Sorry for the wait. — ΛΧΣ 06:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note For personal purposes, I won't be able to help solving this DRN case anymore. I offer my most sincere apologies and leave the thread open for any other volunteer. Regards. — ΛΧΣ 03:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hello. I am new to WP:DRN so while I am acting as a volunteer, my suggestions and input should also probably be taken with a grain of salt, and I would even go so far as to say that minimal or no action should be taken on the part of the involved parties based solely on my reading of the issue -- please at least allow an opportunity for a more experienced volunteer to weigh in.
- I can say that there are a few things that immediately jump out at me. First among these is the rhetoric employed by RidjalA, which in many cases seems quite clearly to be intended as personal attacks, and when not ignored, it is quite reasonably, and civilly, pointed out by those attacked. At minimum, I would suggest that RidjalA should ratchet down the rhetoric ("Orwellian") and redouble their efforts to assume good faith.
- The approach of a separate criticism section in general seems to be straightforwardly discouraged by WP:CRIT.
- It is difficult to fully dig into the content dispute here, as it appears complex, with a long history. I will likely need more time to dig in before making content-based suggestions.
- Again, while keeping in mind the fact that I am a noob, I do feel like a user conduct RfC might be a more appropriate venue for this ongoing dispute; progress on the content issue appears to me (on this cursory reading) to be prevented by the behavior I have described. Again, I may have more to say in a day or two. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
International Organization of Legal Metrology
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| mostly-conduct request under active discussion elsewhere. If that avenue fails a new dispute can be opened focussing on specific issues. Cabe6403 13:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Bill le Conquérant on 20:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I made some modest changes to the article. Within a short period another editor replaced virtually the entire article with content which I did not agree with. I restored the original article and started a discussion on the article's talkpage to discuss development of the article. The other editor quickly re-applied his changes and refused to discuss them. I restored the content once more and again tried to instigate a talkpage discussion. The other editor again replaced the article with his new content and threatened to report me for vandalism if I restored the original content again. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I reported the threats to W:ANI, where I was directed to try here. How do you think we can help? Look at the actions of the editors and help decide how best to develop the article. Opening comments by MartinvlOn 2 February, when User:Bill le Conquérant registered, the article in question had 1727 bytes. The day after he registered, he extended it to 2577 bytes by re-arranging bits of text and adding one small item. I picked it up at this stage anc converted a stub to a 24731 byte that was at least worthy of being classified as a "start class", if not "class C" article. User:Bill le Conquérant then undid my work (which was 90% of the article) and asked that we start again. According to WP:VANDTYPES subsection "Blanking, illegitimate", vandalism include "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason ... However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism ... where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal ... is provided." I regard the reason given by User:Bill le Conquérant as frivilous and as such I request that he be given a formal warning for vandalism. International Organization of Legal Metrology 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.First of all, this is a voluntary process: we cannot give out warnings, blocks, policies, etc. We can act as mediators and help the two parties come to an agreement. Secondly, User:Martinvl, we always WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH so in my view both of you are acting in good faith towards developing the article, you simply have different view points in how that is accomplished. There will be no more accusations of editor conduct by either party in this discussion, instead we will focus purely on content and how to reach a conclusion. I'm currenty reading the content and will post my thoughts soon. Cabe6403 09:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Talk:Saffron terror
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by Qwyrxian on 05:24, 10 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
- Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)
- Lowkeyvision (talk · contribs)
- Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk · contribs)
- Wasifwasif (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Should the word "allegedly" be used in the lead sentence to define the term "saffron terror"?
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We have discussed the matter in both edit summaries and on the talk page (see Talk:Saffron terror#The word alleged.
How do you think we can help?
At the moment, we seem to be at an impasse on the talk page, because myself and Ratnakar.kulkarni believe that "alleged" is actually a part of the definition of the term, while Lowkeyvision and Wasif think that it's impossible for the word to appear in a definition, and Lowkeyvision has further argued that WP:ALLEGED applies.
Opening comments by Lowkeyvision
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.1) Is a convicted criminal, someone who has allegedly broke the law? Is an Islamic Terrorist, someone who allegedly follows Islam? Is someone who is a Christian Fanatic, a fanatic who is allegedly Christian? Saffron is the color of the organizations that proclaim Hindu Nationalism(RSS and BJP). The phrase "Saffron Terrorism" is no different than saying "Hindu Nationalist Terrorism"- and that is why the phrase was coined.
2) I would like to cite WP:ALLEGED to point out that using the word “alleged” places doubt on the credibility of a statement and can introduce bias. This bias leads to a violation of the Second Pillar: Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV.
3) The term “Saffron Terror” can get misused for political reasons similar to the terms "Islamic Terrorism", "State Terrorism" and "Christian Fundamentalist". However, changing the definitions of any of these phrases to include the word "allegedly" would mislead people by introducing bias.
"Saffron terror is a phrase used to describe acts of Right-wing terrorism in India inspired allegedly by Hindu nationalism"
Versus
"Saffron terror is a phrase used to describe acts of Right-wing terrorism in India inspired by Hindu nationalism"
These are the choices. We hope you will side with the second choice.
Thank You .
(Lowkeyvision (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC))
Opening comments by Ratnakar.kulkarni
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.The term of saffron terror became famous after few people(their religion was Hinduism) were arrested in connection with some terror incidents. Now these people have allegedly conducted these terror attacks. There has been no trial in these cases yet nor any judgments. So these people are not convicted criminals, they have allegedly committed some crime and because nothing is proved yet we just cannot say that they were inspired by Hindu Nationalism. When there is any conviction in these cases you can remove the word alleged but till then we cannot write for sure whether they were inspired by Hindu Nationalism or something else.--sarvajna (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Wasifwasif
- According to oxford dictionary, The word allegation means something which has no proof or certainly which is not proven.
- So definition of a term containing the word allegedely implies the definition itself having no proof which logically cannot be correct.
- There cannot be a definition of term without any proof.
- A person can be an alleged saffron terrorist, but saffron terrorism cannot be alleged on itself.
- If none of the alleged & arrested Saffron terrorists are convicted, then those people can be free from allegations but the term Saffron terrorism cannot be allged or freed from allegation since there is no case pending if the term is alleged or not but only on people.
Wasif (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Saffron terror discussion
Please 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.| earlier message no longer relevant |
|---|
| Hello, we will not be starting the discussion until all parties have made their opening statements. I have collapsed your comment for now and will re-open it once the discussion has began. I will post on the remaining users page indicating that we are waiting for them to begin discussion. Thanks, Cabe6403 13:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)}} |
As all parties have presented their opening statements I have uncollapsed the early discussion as promised. I have moved User:Ratnakar.kulkarni's comment to below this message to aid the flow of discussion. Cabe6403 15:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
A small reply to what Lowkeyvision stated in his statement, he uses WP:ALLEGED to defend his statement. It makes no sense at all. If you look at that page it is mentioned Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes (bolding mine). This is exactly what I am saying, the people accused of commiting this crime of saffron terror are people on trail for crimes (although the trial has not yet begun). If we really want NPOV we should use allegedly in the statement .--sarvajna (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- It seems to me that we need to distinguish between the individuals alleged to have been involved in Saffron Terrorism and the definition of the term itself. Currently, is there any WP:RS citation to show that it was "inspired by Hindu Nationalism" or is this speculative on the part of the media? Cabe6403 15:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I do not think that there would be any RS to show that the acts were "inspired by Hindu nationalism" because those acts are supposed to be just allegation against people associated with Hindu Nationalist organizations. No one can be sure whether the acts were inspired by Hindu nationalism or not because there is still a doubt about who really commited those crimes/ what inspired them to commit those crimes (not sure whether my comment was very clear or not). --sarvajna (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- If people are part of a Hindu Nationalist organisation then surely any act they do to further their cause or on behalf of the organisation is 'inspired' by Hindu Nationalism? If it wasn't, why are they involved in a Hindu Nationalist organisation in the first place? Cabe6403 09:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Take for example a person X is involved in a Hindu nationalist organization and he kills other person Y over some domestic dispute will you say that the person X was inspired by Hindu nationalism to kill person Y? Also who said that they commited those crimes to further the cause of Hindu nationalism(assuming that the cause of Hindu Nationalism is to spread terror) and who said that these people acted on behalf of their organization? If I work for microsoft and hacks you email account wil you claim that I hacked it on behalf of microsoft, you cannot claim that unless any judgment is passed in that case. --sarvajna (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also just to reiterate, these terror attacks were allegedly carried out by people associated with Hindu nationalist organization and we can only speculate that they were inspired by Hindu Nationalism but we cannot be sure hence the pharse "allegedly inspired by Hindu nationalism" is required. --sarvajna (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Take for example a person X is involved in a Hindu nationalist organization and he kills other person Y over some domestic dispute will you say that the person X was inspired by Hindu nationalism to kill person Y? Also who said that they commited those crimes to further the cause of Hindu nationalism(assuming that the cause of Hindu Nationalism is to spread terror) and who said that these people acted on behalf of their organization? If I work for microsoft and hacks you email account wil you claim that I hacked it on behalf of microsoft, you cannot claim that unless any judgment is passed in that case. --sarvajna (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- If people are part of a Hindu Nationalist organisation then surely any act they do to further their cause or on behalf of the organisation is 'inspired' by Hindu Nationalism? If it wasn't, why are they involved in a Hindu Nationalist organisation in the first place? Cabe6403 09:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I do not think that there would be any RS to show that the acts were "inspired by Hindu nationalism" because those acts are supposed to be just allegation against people associated with Hindu Nationalist organizations. No one can be sure whether the acts were inspired by Hindu nationalism or not because there is still a doubt about who really commited those crimes/ what inspired them to commit those crimes (not sure whether my comment was very clear or not). --sarvajna (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty_dispute
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by Gaba p on 13:46, 11 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 International position section of the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article is being drafted after the old one was removed by editors Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok. These two editors argue that China's position should not be included in the section (specifically the sentence: China has also stated its support for Argentina's sovereignty claim) as per WP:WEIGHT (I'll let them explain their reasons) and at the same time argue that the British Commonwealth should be included (The British Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory) China's position can be easily sourced (UK Parliament's article, China's own Ministry of Foreign Affairs (point 5, in Spanish), BBC UK, Mercopress, Infobae, La Nación, Clarin and many many more smaller sources) while they have yet not presented an article to source Commonwealth mention.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
The discussion around this section has been going on for weeks now. This is only one point where agreement has not been reached, although a relevant one given its implications on what standards we should use when adding content to WP. I note that I'd have no problem backing the Commonwealth mention provided we can source it.
How do you think we can help?
Commenting on whether the reasons/sources provided are enough to either include both mentions in the section (China/Commonwealth), include only one or none. I believe they are using WP:WEIGHT in a "double-standard" way that permits them to dismiss a thoroughly sourced position (China) and at the same time back the inclusion of another position, as of yet un-sourced (Commonwealth).
Opening comments by Wee Curry Monster
| Plan to redo following discussion and redirection |
|---|
|
I see this as a nomination as decidedly premature and I have to note a further example of the nominator abusing the DR to prevent progress from moving forward. He currently claims I have not provided a source as a basis for estimating weight - diffs ,,. I could provide further diffs going back weeks. I have repeatedly provided a basis for establishing weight most recently last night and first on 20 January 2013 . Referring to the archive there are many further examples, where I patiently respond to his demands for a source but he simply denies it has ever been made. Gaba frequently posts huge tracts of text, then demands we respond to each and every point, he then claims we haven't addressed his points, you respond addressing each and every one and he will then post the same tracts of text again claiming there has been no response. The discussion has not moved forward as a result. If you review the text he proposes, it is clearly non-neutral as he presents the case that only Argentina enjoys International Support, he has removed any mention of support for the UK and the language he uses is far from neutral, reflecting verbatim claims made by the Argentine Government (though I do note after opening here he has toned it down a bit ). I think it is illuminating to refer to his comment of 23 January , he alleges the current state of secondary sources in existence 100% back the fact that a bigger pro-Argentina position is being voiced, which reflects the Argentine Government claim that not one single country in the world supports the UK governing the Falklands. I'm sorry but this seems clearly to be the case of an editor with strong nationalist views that is unable to co-operate with other editors in presenting the neutral view[REDACTED] demands. I could hazard a guess as to why this case has been started but I believe this to be wasting everyone's time. I have no problem bringing it here, if there is a genuine desire to move forward. I'm sorry but I simply can't see it. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Opening comments by Kahastok
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.Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty_dispute discussion
Please 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 volunteer here at the DRN board. This doesn't mean my voice carries more weight that anyone elses, simply I will attempt to act as an impartial mediator. Once all parties have presented their opening statements we can proceed with the discussion. Cabe6403 13:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
| Pre-emptive discussion will be uncollapsed once all parties have made opening statements |
|---|
Comment - Speaking as an average reader, I would be interested in knowing which countries support both "sides". For example, I'd expect the article to include a paragraph like (I'm just picking random contries here):
It looks like both parties agree that this kind of material can be included in the article, but there is a suggestion that including China (or other countries?) would violate WP:UNDUE. I don't think WP:UNDUE can be used to exclude any country's position, because that policy generally applies only when too much text is included in the article. The formulation I'm suggesting is just a brief list, so UNDUE is not violated. Of course, each country's position must be supported by a WP:RS and that source must be identified in a footnote. In summary: if the sources clearly state what China's position is, it should be included in the article. Ditto for every other country's position ... both pro-UK and pro-Argentina. --Noleander (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment A half of the dispute overview presented above is: “The British Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory” – “... they have yet not presented an article to source Commonwealth mention”. As a matter of fact they did, sourcing that listing to United Kingdom - Falkland Islands; cf. also Commonwealth Membership: Associated & Overseas Territories. Apcbg (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
|
India
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| No evidence of discussion also filing editor is under an active topic ban on the subject after persistant disruptive editing on this subject Cabe6403 11:13, 12 February 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 Billava and Bunts are belongs to same caste and community, still bants site shows warrior class and billava shows lower class. Also billava site shows so many unwanted & baised reference of bants which is not correct. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Above editor never bothered to give proper justification and reply. How do you think we can help? Need to delete the information which does not have any reference. Also editor should not hurt anyone by providing such wrong information. Opening comments by QwyrxianPlease 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.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.Sanillin1 (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
|