Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions
m fix |
|||
Line 239: | Line 239: | ||
*{{ping|Mhhossein}}, do you intend to get involved in this discussion here? <span style="font-family:Verdana">[[User:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#078330">Steven</span>]] [[User talk:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#27a">Crossin</span>]] <sup>[[WP:DRN/V|<span style="color:#d81">Help resolve disputes!</span>]]</sup></span> 08:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
*{{ping|Mhhossein}}, do you intend to get involved in this discussion here? <span style="font-family:Verdana">[[User:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#078330">Steven</span>]] [[User talk:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#27a">Crossin</span>]] <sup>[[WP:DRN/V|<span style="color:#d81">Help resolve disputes!</span>]]</sup></span> 08:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
||
:Hey [[User:Steven Crossin|Steven Crossin]]. I think the capacity of the article talk page is not used well and it's too soon to come to this board, though I'm ready to respond. --[[User:Mhhossein|<span style="font-family:Aharoni"><span style="color:#002E63">M</span><span style="color:#2E5894">h</span><span style="color:#318CE7">hossein</span></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mhhossein|<span style="color:#056608">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 14:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
:Hey [[User:Steven Crossin|Steven Crossin]]. I think the capacity of the article talk page is not used well and it's too soon to come to this board, though I'm ready to respond. --[[User:Mhhossein|<span style="font-family:Aharoni"><span style="color:#002E63">M</span><span style="color:#2E5894">h</span><span style="color:#318CE7">hossein</span></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mhhossein|<span style="color:#056608">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 14:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
||
::Mhhossein has not provided a substantiated response on the article's TP about this, as he's not done here either. Does this mean they forfeit their position? [[User:Stefka Bulgaria|Stefka Bulgaria]] ([[User talk:Stefka Bulgaria|talk]]) 19:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Talk:Siddha medicine#Ministry_of_AYUSH_is_a_governmental_body == |
== Talk:Siddha medicine#Ministry_of_AYUSH_is_a_governmental_body == |
Revision as of 19:20, 23 September 2019
|
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This is an informal place to resolve small 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 Wikipedia. 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 Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV | Resolved | Avi8tor (t) | 19 days, 10 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 6 days, 1 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 6 days, 1 hours |
Norse Deity pages | In Progress | Dots321 (t) | 11 days, 23 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 6 hours | VeryRarelyStable (t) | 1 days, 21 hours |
List of South Korean girl groups | Closed | 98Tigerius (t) | 11 days, 17 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 8 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 8 hours |
Benevolent dictatorship | In Progress | Banedon (t) | 10 days, 22 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 7 hours | LokiTheLiar (t) | 5 hours |
Talk:Taylor Swift | Closed | Gsgdd (t) | 10 days, 16 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 10 days, 1 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 10 days, 1 hours |
Kylie Minogue | Closed | PHShanghai (t) | 8 days, 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 8 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 8 hours |
African diaspora | Closed | Kyogul (t) | 5 days, | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 1 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 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.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 20:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Current disputes
Ashleigh Barty
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
This dispute appears to have been resolved by the parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System
Closed. I put the discussion on hold to permit further discussion at the article talk page. That has not happened. Any further discussion should still be at the article talk page. If one party is willing to discuss and the other does not, see the discussion failure essay. Resume discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Chris Savino
Closed. There are three problems with this case. All of them can be solved, but the case cannot be handled here without solving them. First, the case does not link to the subject article, Chris Savino. I would correct that if that were the only problem. Second, the filing editor has not notified the other editor. Third, there has not been extensive discussion at the article talk page. The discussion by the filing editor has only been via edit summaries, and not on the article talk page. Discussion must be on the article talk page. Begin discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:International Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness#Editors_reverting_showing_bias?
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Closed. There has not been significant discussion on a talk page. Let the discussion continue. If there is no discussion, read the discussion failure essay. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, file another thread here. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:People%27s Mujahedin_of_Iran#Recent_revert_by_Mhhossein
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Recent revert by Mhhossein (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
Dispute overview
This section Ties to foreign actors has three unnecessary subheadings:
- "After exile" (no need for this since we don' have a "Before exile" subheading anymore).
- "State sponsorship" (a subsection that only consists of one sentence can be merged under section's current heading).
- "Non-state actors", which can be merged together with the section's current heading: "Ties to foreign and non-state actors"
user:Mhhossein's objection to this has been: "IRI POVs and MEK's possible counter-POVs need to be included in the "State-sponsorship" section which justifies keeping the section."
I find that Mhhossein's objection does not address the issue of having unnecessary subheadings.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
TP discussion that led to nowhere
How do you think we can help?
I think my request makes sense, but Mhhossein's objection doesn't, so we need a uninvolved editor to take a quick look and decide.
Summary of dispute by Mhhossein
Talk:People%27s Mujahedin_of_Iran#Recent_revert_by_Mhhossein discussion
- @Mhhossein:, do you intend to get involved in this discussion here? Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 08:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hey Steven Crossin. I think the capacity of the article talk page is not used well and it's too soon to come to this board, though I'm ready to respond. --Mhhossein talk 14:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Mhhossein has not provided a substantiated response on the article's TP about this, as he's not done here either. Does this mean they forfeit their position? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Siddha medicine#Ministry_of_AYUSH_is_a_governmental_body
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Siddha medicine#Ministry of AYUSH is a governmental body (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
Dispute overview
The Editors claim that Siddha medicine as Quackery But Siddha medicine is a scientific process. Tamil Nadu state runs a 5.5-year course in Siddha medicine (BSMS: Bachelor in Siddha Medicine and Surgery). There are research centers like National Institute of Siddha and Central Council for Research in Siddha.
I believe the editors must feel that Siddha medicine as Quackery because of it's spiritual aspect. I have asked them to provide the details of the experiments done on Siddha medicine to prove that its Quackery.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have discussed on the Talk page.
How do you think we can help?
If possible it should not be added since it has not been proved as quackery, and will mislead the new people looking for alternative medicine. If that is not possible then it should be added on a separate subheading called "Criticism".
Summary of dispute by Zefr
There are two levels of the dispute. 1) Specifically and mainly, the IP refutes a widely published account and fact that the Indian Medical Association (members are conventional MDs) identifies Siddha medicine as quackery (stated and sourced in the article lede). 2) More generally, the IP is attempting to redefine Siddha medicine as science-based, but rather there is decades-long knowledge of it as myth-based with no actual scientific practices (same as for other Indian rural medicine, like Ayurveda and Unani), including in 1996 and 2018 by the Supreme Court of India (talk page discussion, and here). Under WP:BURDEN, the IP has no reputable science-based evidence that Siddha is not quackery, and is soapboxing an isolated opinion to counter the prevailing widely-held view, even in India by the Supreme Court and fact-based professionals. We have two essays guiding how Wikipedia deals with medical quackery and pseudoscience: WP:QUACKS and "Yes, we are biased". --Zefr (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Ifnord
Zefr has summed this up very nicely, please see [1] on the article's talk page. The IP has violated 3RR to remove the indication that this pseudo medicine is considered quackery by mainstream medicine. The article is unbalanced, as is. There is no criticism, no indication (other than the lede) in the text that this is pseudoscience. A reader needs to see an article which is more than simply an advertisement to this practice. Ifnord (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Alexbrn
We must follow policy and sources; the OP's requests here are not aligned with these basic requirements. Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Siddha medicine#Ministry_of_AYUSH_is_a_governmental_body discussion
- Pretty cut and dry, this one. 103.231, on Wikipedia we need to stick to reliable sources and what they say, and not give undue weight to minority viewpoints on topics. I've reviewed the article discussion page and editors there have made their argument well on the quackery claim being backed up by reliable sources, so I really don't see any further need for discussion here. The status quo (having the content in the article) is the correct outcome here per policy. I'll close this in 48 hours if no other comments crop up. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 08:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Israeli settlement#Irish_bill
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Closed. A Request for Comments is being used to resolve the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:T. S._Wiley
Closed as premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor should make a request on the article talk page. The fact that the filing editor is an unregistered editor working for the subject of the article does not change the rule that discussion should be on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
User talk:Koavf
This does not appear to be a content dispute about a particular article or articles, but a question about policies and guidelines. The filing editor should ask the question at the Help Desk. If there is then a content dispute about a particular article, a new case can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:List of American Horror Story episodes
Closed. This dispute has been closed with a civility warning to one of the parties. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution, and incivility may result in a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Italian language#Official minority language in Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Italian language#Official minority language in Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- DavideVeloria88 (talk · contribs)
- Springpfühler (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages protects the Italian language in Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina as a minority language; however, few people actually speak it in these countries. So the question is: should they be included in the infobox as countries where Italian is recognized as a minority language or not? According to some, Romania and Bosnia-Herzegovina must not be entered in the infobox as only this card says that, but the Template:Infobox language says the parameter minority is for "countries in which it is a recognised/protected minority language" and that is "intended for legal protection and de jure recognition".
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Talk about it with other users, but no solution has been found.
How do you think we can help?
Checking whether Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina can be included in the infobox of the Italian language as done on other pages.
Summary of dispute by Springpfühler
Talk:Italian language#Official minority language in Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina discussion
- Hi, I'm a mediator here at DRN. I'd recommend notifying the other editor of this discussion. I've read over the discussion page and have some input. I'm happy for an open discussion to take place here. The Italian language article currently lists Croatia and Slovenia as countries Italian is a recognised minority language, and this is backed up by their articles - Croatia#Languages writes Minority languages are in official use in local government units where more than a third of population consists of national minorities or where local legislation defines so. Those languages are Czech, Hungarian, Italian..., and then for Slovenia#Languages, it says Hungarian and Italian, spoken by the respective minorities, enjoy the status of official languages in the ethnically mixed regions along the Hungarian and Italian borders, to the extent that even the passports issued in those areas are bilingual. So we have clearly defined recognition by the government of the country. Do we have sources from the Romanian or Bosnian/Herzegovinan governments about the recognition of Italian as a recognised minority language? That seems to be the bar that has to be met here. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 13:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages has been signed and ratified by the government of Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sources: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. And according to thei articles: Bosnia and Herzegovina#Languages: "the 1992 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Bosnia and Herzegovina recognizes the following minority languages: Albanian, Montenegrin, Czech, Italian [...]"; and in the page Romania it is listed in the Infobox country as Recognised minority language. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- The Template:Infobox language says that Minority language is "intended for legal protection and de jure recognition"; that Treaty has been signed and ratified by Romania and Bosnia. Also, previously Romania and Bosnia were added in the Infobox with the word "(de jure)" to indicate precisely that they are recognized by the treaty. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Song Thang massacre
Closed. Filed by a now-blocked sockpuppet account. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|