Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
 |
Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread • |
|
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, mediation, 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. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button The DRN noticeboard has a rotating co-ordinator, whose role is to help keep the noticeboard organised, ensuring disputes are attended to in a timely manner, are escalated to alternative forums as required, and that new volunteers get any assistance that they need. The coordinator also collects monthly metrics for the noticeboard. The current coordinator is Nihlus. |
|||||
| Do you need assistance? | Would you like to help? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
|
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over this page 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 Wikipedia 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 |
| Talk:British Empire#Afghanistan | Resolved | Hayras123 (t) | 9 days, 10 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 hours |
| Belly dance | Closed | Marina Towadros (t) | 5 days, | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 hours |
| Talk:Citizens (Spanish political party) | Closed | CodeInconnu (t) | 4 days, 7 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 8 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 8 hours |
| List of_Xbox_One_X_Enhanced_games | Closed | LTH ASG (t) | 2 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 23 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 23 hours |
| Talk:Myofascial release | New | Memtgs (t) | 33 minutes | None | n/a | Memtgs (t) | 33 minutes |
 Archived DRN Cases |
|---|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159 |
|
|
| This page is archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Contents
- 1 Current disputes
- 1.1 Talk:British Empire#Afghanistan
- 1.1.1 Summary of dispute by The Four Deuces
- 1.1.2 Summary of dispute by Slatersteven
- 1.1.3 Talk:British Empire#Afghanistan discussion
- 1.1.3.1 First statement by moderator
- 1.1.3.2 First statements by editors
- 1.1.3.3 Second statement by moderator
- 1.1.3.4 Second statements by editors
- 1.1.3.5 Third statement by moderator
- 1.1.3.6 Third statements by editors
- 1.1.3.7 Fourth statement by moderator
- 1.1.3.8 Fourth statements by editors
- 1.1.3.9 Fifth statement by moderator
- 1.1.3.10 Round 5 statements by editors
- 1.1.3.11 Sixth statement by moderator
- 1.1.3.12 Round 6 statements by editors
- 1.2 Belly dance
- 1.3 Talk:Citizens (Spanish political party)
- 1.4 List of_Xbox_One_X_Enhanced_games
- 1.5 Talk:Myofascial release
- 1.1 Talk:British Empire#Afghanistan
Current disputes[edit]
Talk:British Empire#Afghanistan[edit]
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. |
Closed as resolved. There appears to be agreement to use the Anachronous map of the British Empire, which does not include Afghanistan, which shows different types of colonies, and which is not limited to one time period, since the British Empire had two high-water marks. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2018 (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 I do not want so start an edit war, so I have come to this as the other editors in question have not reached a consensus despite all the replies on the talk page. I have repeatedly given sources that Afghanistan has not been part of the British empire etc etc, but the other two parties involved seem to be oblivious and disregard this and instead just revert these edits. They have resorted to personal attacks and claims rather than talking about the subject matter in question. I propose the use of a correct map with lots of sources to back it up but the agenda the other two parties have results in them having trouble accepting it. I do not want personal opinions and biases to affect what content sources say. Look over the section on the relevant talk page for more information. This credible map is the best one to use [14] but this is disputed by the other parties for no reason other than "I don't like it". Have you tried to resolve this previously? Back and forth discussion on the talk page How do you think we can help? By looking over the discussion and giving advice on what to do. Summary of dispute by The Four Deuces[edit]The dispute is about whether to include Afghanistan as part of the map showing all territories that were ever part of the British Empire. Hayras123 says it wasn't but hasn't provided any good sources. One source for example is a current news article about Afghanistan's independence day celebrations published in the Republic of Georgia. As a compromise I suggested that the map refer to the empire and it territories. TFD (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Slatersteven[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Only one of Hayras123 sources (as far as I can tell) unequivocally state that Afghanistan was not part of the British empire (and I am not too sure about even that). They all says is that either it was not part of the British Empire at a given time, or that Afghanistan had some degree of independence. I (and indeed The Four Deuces) have tried to suggest a compromise. My one based in part on Hayras123's last edit [[15]]. This Hayras123 then rejected [[16]]. Hayras123 then seemingly alters the text to now exclude the word Protectorate [[17]], and then again [[18]] (again as if to ensure there can be no loop hole for inclusion of Afghanistan).Hayras123 has been pretty damn insulting over this. The date Hayras123 picks for his map is 1919, the year of Afghanistan's independence. The map Hayras123 wished to replace showed all territories that had ever been administered by Britain. I did provide sources that explicitly said it had been a protectorate at some point (and our map showed protectorates as part of the British empire, the user had not objected to the inclusion of those). If anything it is the Hayras123 who had not edited in good faith, not attempted to reach a compromise. Well they appear to have done so now.Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Talk:British Empire#Afghanistan discussion[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderator[edit]I will be acting as the moderator. Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules and follow the rules. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think is the issue and what should or should not be done to the article? Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Also, please do not use terms such as "accuser" or "aggrieving party". They don't help even at WP:ANI, let alone at WP:DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
First statements by editors[edit].I have included many different crediblesources all of which clearly state Afghanistan as a separate, independent entity from the British empire. Including: [19]p.102 This one which explicitly states "not part of the British Empire": [20]p.149 I also included credible sources that states that the British only ever had control of Afghanistan's foreign affairs. What I believe is the best compromise is to use this map that clearly states all of Britain's territories correctly. [21] This map is not "from the British empire in 1919" because it clearly shows the US territories and others that were not part of the British empire in 1919. This map, I believe, is the most credible in terms of representing the territories that the British empire had ever held.[22] This map [23] which is currently used also has improper use of sources, as one of the source links doesn't even work and the other contains no map or mention of Afghanistan in the British empire. The file also clearly states that it is the author's own self-published work. No other maps from the time Britain "supposedly" ruled over Afghanistan ever included Afghanistan as part of the empire. Rather, they include countries such as Nepal [24], which isn't even highlighted on the map that is currently used. For example, this map [25] used on Wikipedia should clearly highlight Afghanistan as it was produced in 1886. However, it makes no such mention or claim. Neither does this map [26] or this one from the BBC of the British empire in 1914 [27]. I have included many more sources on the article's talk page, but I digress. My compromise would be to use any other credible map to show the territories that the British empire had ever held, which is this map [28]. Along with the caption that mentions "all of the territories ever held by the British empire, as the map currently used is false, and the fact that Afghanistan had never been part of the British empire. Hayras123 (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC) The first source is not saying it, it is quoting one British empire official at a given snap shot in time (and we neither know who this was or when they said it). The other source says it was not part of the British empire in India, which is not quite the same as saying it was not controlled by Britain (and in fact can be seen as weasel wording), it ids also a foot note, so it is hard to see context of what it is saying. The map he is presenting in not the one we were discussing, it was this edit [29]. I also provided sources that say Afghanistan was a protectorate, and I now demonstrate the problem with Hayras123's approach [30] in 1839 Britain invaded Afghanistan and installed a puppet king and ruled the place. Thus (yes) at on e time it was rules by Britain.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator[edit]Be consise. You dond't need to provide a long justification for your view. Comment on content, not contributors. You don't need to say who is wrong, only what is right. Please statement, in no more than three sentences, what you think the issue is. Then we can talk about compromise. We don't need to hammer sources at this point. (Arguing that one source is better than another usually doesn't resolve content disputes. But we need to identify what the content dispute is very briefly before we even talk about compromises.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Second statements by editors[edit]The issue is an argument about the map and caption used in the "British empire" article. More specifically, whether to use this map [31] or this map [32] is the main issue of contention that is disputed over. Third statement by moderator[edit]I am puzzled. I see that the issue is what map to use. However, the dispute is characterized as being about Afghanistan and the British Empire. It appears that neither map shows Afghanistan as ever having been part of the British Empire. One map simply shows the maximum extent of the British Empire, and the other map breaks down the territories of the British Empire. So what is the issue, and what does it have to do with Afghanistan? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Third statements by editors[edit]The Issue is whether or not the map for the article should include Afghanistan (see arguments above as to why). A matter that can be resolved by just changing the caption (as was done).Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator[edit]Okay. We are in agreement that the issue is whether the map should include Afghanistan. We have also identified two proposed versions of the map, neither of which includes Afghanistan. So there appears to be no disagreement on the main real issue. Should I close this thread as resolved? If not, should I close it as failed because no one knows what the issue is? Can someone clarify? Any posts longer than one paragraph will be hatted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors[edit]The problem at first, which was the first edit I ever made, was a change in the map used to illustrate all the territorial holdings that the British empire has held. The debate then evolved into a debate about whether Afghanistan was ever part of the British empire, and now is claimed to be a change in caption as the main focus point of the dispute. I have no problem with the caption, as long as this map is used [33]. Also, the current map used for all territories of the British empire does include and highlight Afghanistan in red, which is located west of Pakistan, or more specifically, top left of India[34]. As has been shown, Afghanistan was never part of the British empire ever, so the map I want to be used clearly shows a correct version of all territories of the British empire (and contains more useful information such as the breakdown of each territory ever acquired by the British empire). Hayras123 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator[edit]Okay. I think that there is agreement that the map to be used is not of the British Empire at any particular year, because it should include places that were under British rule at different times, including the Thirteen Colonies and British India. That means that we need to use a map that shows the maximum extent of British rule across times and centuries. Afghanistan was always under various kings, sometimes under unequal treaties. Does anyone think that we need to include Afghanistan in the coverage? If so, is there agreement that it should be shown in such a way to indicate that it was never part of India and was a special case (out of various special cases)? Is everyone willing to agree to exclude Afghanistan? If not, is there a compromise that will include it in a special way? Please provide a brief answer below, regardless of whether you have said anything above, not later than 2359 UTC, 2 January 2018. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Round 5 statements by editors[edit]Yes, I agree that Afghanistan should not be included and as such a better map, such as this one be used which shows all of the territories the British ever controlled, excluding Afghanistan. [35]. Sorry for any mistakes I made during this process as this is my first time. Hayras123 (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderator[edit]If there is no objection within 24 hours, this case will be closed as resolved with agreement to use the "anachronous" (non-synchronous) map of the British Empire showing its maximum extent. (This isn't any one time, since the Thirteen Colonies and British India were the crown jewels of two different British Empires that partly overlapped.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Round 6 statements by editors[edit]
|
Volunteer note: I have notified the other editors. Belly dance[edit]
– General close. See comments for reasoning. |
Closed as no response. The other two editors whom the filing editor notified have not responded within 48 hours. The filing editor is asked again to try to discuss any edits on the article talk page, Talk:Belly dance, but to see WP:DISCFAIL for what to do if other editors revert her edits without discussing. The other editors are reminded that they do have a responsibility to discuss any edits, including the reverting of edits. It is always better to discuss content than to report conduct, but non-constructive editing can be reported at WP:ANI or WP:ANEW. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2018 (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 Dear Respectful Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Board; I, user (Marina Towadros), added the historical name of Egyptian Dance in the Belly Dance page, sourcing it with a very reliable source as the Independent. User (Swazzo) kept removing the sources 4 times and posted an Edit War threat to my talk page though he was the one removing sources, not me.
The global source i added is the Independent Article with title of: "How the ancient Egyptian art of belly dancing is suffering a wobble in popularity." Link: Further, suddenly one claimed that i have personal axe with them for just putting a global source and respecting the Egyptian art heritage? i know no one here, unlike them. Also every step i make is after an advice that been sent to either: 1) Wikipedia Help Request. 2) Wikipedia Admin.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I informed the issue to a respectful Wikipedia Admin and he advised that if the issue keeps going, i can take it to the Dispute resolution board. How do you think we can help? Seeing the history page. Reading the sources and seeing by yourself whether removing accurate and reliable sources information 4 times is with or against Wikipedia editing rules?. Thank you. Summary of dispute by Swazzo[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Belly dance discussion[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Comment: Done! The other user claims that my editing is not allowed and writing Egyptian Dance accompanied by the global source is not allowed too, is this really against Wikipedia rules?. The issue been discussed in Arab Dance Talk Page too and a respectful Wikipedia Admin said that fixing inaccurate data is great as i was astonished by how the article lacked correct info regarding Egyptian folklore. All i want is preserving Egyptian Art and i kept putting well sourced data, not a single edit i did without putting sources, yet the other user keeps implying that i should not edit page's information and removed reliable sources?. I didn't remove any sources as this is not allowed as per my knowledge of Wikipedia rules, unlike the other user. Talk:Citizens (Spanish political party)[edit]
– General close. See comments for reasoning. |
Closed. The statement by User:CodeInconnu is still incomprehensible, but the reply by User:Sonrisas1 is clear, which is that this is a dispute for a Request for Comments and not for this noticeboard, and participation here is voluntary. The filing party is advised to request assistance in composing a neutrally worded RFC (because an obscurely worded RFC will complicate rather than help). The filing party is also advised to consider editing the Spanish Wikipedia or Catalan Wikipedia. Both editors are again reminded to be civil and avoid personal attacks, and to report personal attacks at WP:ANI or ignore them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
List of_Xbox_One_X_Enhanced_games[edit]
– General close. See comments for reasoning. |
I've never been keen on taking a one versus many dispute as it normally boils down to someone not accepting consensus, and that is the case here. This has been discussed and consensus has been reached; there is no reason to drag this here. Nihlus 19:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Additional closing comments: When there is a dispute between one editor and multiple editors, it isn't useful or accurate to list only one of the editors. However, as the closer implies, moderated discussion here isn't likely to change minds. The filing editor is advised that they can either accept that consensus is against them, or file a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Myofascial release[edit]
– New 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
User:Jytdog and User:Alexbrn are persistently reverting my edits to this article. In my edits, I am attempting to clarify that one major systematic review found research quality on the subject was mixed. The other users are pushing edits that describe the research quality as universally poor, which does not accurately represent the information stated in the source's conclusion. User:Jytdog tells me that his edits are according to Wikipedia's medical evidence policy, but will not explain why, and has instead accused me of "Wikilawyering," "weasel words," and "promotion" without any explanation.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Explaining my position, citing the source and comparing it to the edits, reaffirming assumptions of good faith
How do you think we can help?
Clarify Wikipedia's policy pertaining to medical evidence, and help explain when the information in the article should not match the conclusion of the source being cited.
Summary of dispute by Jytdog[edit]
Here are the two diffs by the OP: diff, restored in this diff. We don't write things like "Although it shows some promise in treating othopaedic conditions, further high-quality research is necessary to better assess its clinical efficacy", in fact WP:MEDMOS specifically warns against the "more research is necessary" trope. OP has been pointed to WP:MEDMOS at the Talk page. The content in the article says nothing about "universal" anything - the ref PMC 3718355 says "but because of the low quality, few conclusions could be drawn" and the content says: "The poor quality of research into the use of myofascial release for orthopaedic conditions precludes any conclusions being drawn about its usefulness for this purpose"Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
![[14]](https://web-archive.nli.org.il/National_Library/20160521004321mp_/https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anachronous_map_of_the_British_Empire.png){kind=link}
![[23]](https://web-archive.nli.org.il/National_Library/20160521004321mp_/https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_British_Empire.png){kind=link}
![[24]](https://web-archive.nli.org.il/National_Library/20160521004321mp_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/British_Indian_Empire_1909_Imperial_Gazetteer_of_India.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](https://web-archive.nli.org.il/National_Library/20160521004321mp_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Imperial_Federation%2C_Map_of_the_World_Showing_the_Extent_of_the_British_Empire_in_1886_%28levelled%29.jpg/250px-Imperial_Federation%2C_Map_of_the_World_Showing_the_Extent_of_the_British_Empire_in_1886_%28levelled%29.jpg){kind=link}
![[26]](https://web-archive.nli.org.il/National_Library/20160521004321mp_/http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/13/article-0-11C7C792000005DC-221_468x364.jpg){kind=link}
![[27]](https://web-archive.nli.org.il/National_Library/20160521004321mp_/http://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/683fa00a76004c056390c3f03ed4571b5b19ee57.gif){kind=link}