Ugog Nizdast (talk | contribs) |
→Mediation: new section |
||
Line 185: | Line 185: | ||
:Ours is August 31, see [[Wikipedia:GLAM/Montana History]]. I haven't done one before, either! (Blind leading the blind) but Rosiestep and Keilana have offered to help me out (from afar). I am organizing it under my alternative account, [[User:MontOther]]. If you ping me at either page, I'll get the message, as I have the accounts both with email access and all pages watchlisted. [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]]</sup> 18:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC) |
:Ours is August 31, see [[Wikipedia:GLAM/Montana History]]. I haven't done one before, either! (Blind leading the blind) but Rosiestep and Keilana have offered to help me out (from afar). I am organizing it under my alternative account, [[User:MontOther]]. If you ping me at either page, I'll get the message, as I have the accounts both with email access and all pages watchlisted. [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]]</sup> 18:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Mediation == |
|||
Hi TransporterMan, thanks for the info about refiling for mediation. To be honest, based on what you said in your message on my talk page, I don't think it's worth bothering to refile now. I maintain that my position is not wrong in this case, but I can't be arsed arguing any more. The fact is, two editors who were hardly active on football articles in the past have come along and seen something they didn't like, and now because no one from [[WP:FOOTY]] was interested in a lengthy debate, their opinion is sticking. They've misinterpreted the sources at every turn, and there's no way I can compete with that. – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 13:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:41, 17 August 2015
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Interview for my dissertation
hello, My name is yilmaz. I am doing master at Sussex in the field of media and cultural studies and I am writing dissertation about Wikipedia as a commons but I need to have an interview with at least three (3) Wikipedians. I send you an interview form, which consists of twelve questions. The interview is crucial to analyse the main logic of Wikipedia and digital commons. I hope you will help me for this.
Best Regards Yilmaz
- Thank you for considering me, but I would prefer not to participate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Uninvolved Admin
Hi TransporterMan, I would request you to consider giving your opinion, as an uninvolved Admin, on an ARCA discussion featuring me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Imposition_of_an_Arbitration_Enforced_Sanction_against_me_by_Bishonen Soham321 (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I'm not an administrator and, in any event, am not sufficiently familiar at this point in time with the issues being raised there to have an opinion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Could you please make a judgment on this dispute
The two other parties removed my contributions.
My argument is that the vast majority of the article is not cited either; therefore to preserve fairness to me, that large amount of un-cited content in the article has to be removed along with my attempted-but-removed contribution.
The alternative is to permit my contribution along with all the other pre-existing un-cited content.
Permitting all the other un-cited content, but rejecting mine because it's un-cited, is anti-egalitarian in a serious and fundamental way.
Here is the wikipedia page. [[1]]
I wrote the following paragraph under the article's 'Reception' section.
"With personal computers such as the Apple IIe, teenagers whose parents could both afford computers and understand their virtues, enjoyed a video-game experience that was of unprecedented quality; i.e. the graphics and complexity. This video game experience was strikingly superior and more sophisticated to that gained from the established, mainstream Atari, Intellivision, and CollecoVision video game consoles, which connected to TV's. Sports enthusiasts could buy a computer magazine from the neighborhood grocery store, copy computer instructions from the magazine into their computer, and use their computer to calculate the likelihood their favorite sports teams will win, based on the current sports statistics, which were input by the user. High school and college students could impress their teachers with term papers that were printed as opposed to hand-written - this gave them an undeniable advantage. Artists could use the system to create colorful designs. This generation of early personal computer consumers carried the intuitive insights of their computer experiences irreversibly into their adult lives, thus influencing the intellectual and cultural milieu which became fertile ground for the coming internet age."
I wrote the following paragraph under the article's section "Apple IIe card for Macintosh
"In the 1980's the Apple IIe was more popular than the Macintosh, the latter of which rose in popularity in the early 1990's thus becoming the main competing product against also-up-and-coming Microsoft Windows systems, which required IBM-compatible person computers."
The requests for mediation and our talk pages follow.
Nn9888 (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- The Verifiability Policy makes it clear that uncited material which has been challenged (and material may be challenged by simply being removed) cannot be restored in an article without having an inline citation to a reliable source, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." (Emphasis added.) The fact that there is other uncited information in the article is no reason to introduce additional uncited material, see OTHERSTUFF and OSE for a full discussion. As to fairness, at Wikipedia we judge edits not editors. While that principle is usually used to prevent an editor's negative characteristics — bias, POV, prejudice — from being used to denigrate their otherwise-proper edits, it also works in reverse: You have no right as an editor to demand fairness; your edits either stand or fall on their own merit, not on your rights as an editor, and the policy here is that challenged edits cannot be made without a reliable source. Next, before you react to that by deleting large amounts of material from that article, be sure to read do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and be aware that while the policy I've cited above applies to removals and restorations of relatively small amounts of information that there is some considerable sentiment here that it should not apply to either removals of large amounts of information from a single article or to editors who systematically and routinely go from article to article removing unsourced information. Finally, please be aware that in saying what I've said here I am speaking only in my capacity as an ordinary editor, not as chairperson of the Mediation Committee or on the behalf of that Committee. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC) PS: I'm pinging @C.Fred and Closeapple so that they will be aware of this discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Xlinktool not working for 3O Service log
Looks like 3O Xlinktool page has not been working for quite some time. Any ideas on how we manage Wikipedia:Third opinion/Service award log? If I'm not mistaken, at least two more editors should be eligible by now. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- The tool seems to come and go. (Aside: Ever since those tools were moved, edit count, page stats, and other tools have been a royal PITA. I'm not a coder so I have zero insight as to why that is, but I've seen scads of people griping about it and nothing seems to be done to fix it on a long term basis. Most recently I saw — I don't remember where, but it's been in the last few days — an appeal for additional maintainers for those tools, which I presume is because they keep breaking down and sit there with no one to fix them.) Until it starts working again we may have to just put the awards on hold or do it the hard way using the edits by user tool, which is also linked on the 3O history page but which is having its own set of fits and starts currently; if you use it, it will redirect from an old tool to a new tool, but drop the username and pagename in the process; be sure to insert the page name as "Wikipedia:Third opinion" exactly as to spacing, punctuation, and capitalization or you'll get a false negative. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm on a partial Wikibreak hence the delay. Okay, this works out too, I've found one eligible editor and another one nearing. I'll post on the log.
- @Erpert: would you be interested in maintaining this with us? There's one 3O Service award to be given out, would you do the honours? Just take a look at the log. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I don't really have the time right now. :/ Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I've moved this to the project talk page for future ref. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!
I just wanted to say thank you for your third opinion on David Cote. I appreciate the time you took to offer a thought-out response. Cheers!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- You're very welcome and I appreciate the kind words. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
You have one. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Back to you. --- TransporterMan (TALK) 05:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
New Mail
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Sillyputty1967 (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Republic of Aquitaine
Now that you linked prior discussion, the two editors are going back and forth in DRN without a moderator. It might be appropriate to collapse that discussion and to tell them to wait for a moderator to show up. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm kind of taking the case, working on a long response right now. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. It kind of looks like one of the participants has a conflict of interest in that he appears to be asserting an association with the so-called republic. Can he find an article in Le Monde? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- COI is a conduct issue with which we need not be concerned at DRN. I have no idea about Le Monde, but a quick Google search reveals nothing even resembling a reliable source on either the English or French Google sites. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- If you are mediating the question, can you please set its status to Open rather than New? My only comment about Le Monde is that it is a reliable source, as is Le Figaro. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- COI is a conduct issue with which we need not be concerned at DRN. I have no idea about Le Monde, but a quick Google search reveals nothing even resembling a reliable source on either the English or French Google sites. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. It kind of looks like one of the participants has a conflict of interest in that he appears to be asserting an association with the so-called republic. Can he find an article in Le Monde? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Email Inquiry
Thank you for taking a look. My concern had been that the editor may have wanted to stop the DRN discussion, considering it to be Wikidrama, but would return to editing to insert "Judea and Samaria", the name given by Israel to a contested area that the Anglophone press refers to as the West Bank. Now that the article is in a compliant shape, and since dispute resolution is voluntary, I went ahead and did a general close, as you can see. Of course, compliance with a content guideline is not voluntary. If discussion continues, I think that we agree that it should be on the talk page, and can then go to an RFC if anyone really wants one (and one shouldn't be necessary). Since the West Bank is either in Israel or in Palestine, it is subject to WP:ARBPIA, so that any conduct issues should go to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why so many conduct disputes about the Balkans go to WP:ANI rather than to Arbitration Enforcement under WP:ARBMAC, but that is an unrelated question. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Amon Carter Museum Edit-a-thon Update
The date of the upcoming edit-a-thon at the Amon Carter Museum of American Art in Fort Worth has been changed to October 10, 2015. An event page for the event should be forthcoming shortly. I'll be serving as the technical adviser for the event and your participation would be very much appreciated. I'll let you know when the event page is up. TransporterMan (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page
Third Opinion
Okay. Lesson learned. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_120#Talk:Grand_Slam_Championship.23Section_removal thank you for introducing the WP:DISCFAIL guidelines, they look like good things to remember.
I have asked again that they respond to conversation, on the appropriate article's talk page. I have also brought this up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#Grand_Slam_Championship.
Do you know how long it is one has to wait before they don't reply before continuing with the procedure? I know they're regularly online. Ranze (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- There's no "has to" but the wait time recommendations are in steps 5 and 6 of DISCFAIL. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Request for comment - Kids Company
Hello. If you have time I would be indebted if you could comment on reliable sources here. So far, the only editor to comment is the editor that I am locking horns with over the issue. I am grateful for his input, regardless. I think a third opinion would be useful. Thanks in advance. Selector99 (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Editathons
(From my talk page)
Hey, Montanbw, I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring your offer over at Harej's talk page. You're right that the Amon Carter Museum of American Art has a substantial collection of Russells (and Remingtons) and, indeed, it was originally named the Amon Carter Museum of Western Art and from its founding in 1961 until 1967 only focused on art of the American West; it began expanding its collection to include 19th and 20th century American art in 1967 and was renamed to its current name in 2010. When's your event? Ours is October 10. Have you done one before? I've not and I'm feeling my way along on this one. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ours is August 31, see Wikipedia:GLAM/Montana History. I haven't done one before, either! (Blind leading the blind) but Rosiestep and Keilana have offered to help me out (from afar). I am organizing it under my alternative account, User:MontOther. If you ping me at either page, I'll get the message, as I have the accounts both with email access and all pages watchlisted. Montanabw(talk) 18:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Mediation
Hi TransporterMan, thanks for the info about refiling for mediation. To be honest, based on what you said in your message on my talk page, I don't think it's worth bothering to refile now. I maintain that my position is not wrong in this case, but I can't be arsed arguing any more. The fact is, two editors who were hardly active on football articles in the past have come along and seen something they didn't like, and now because no one from WP:FOOTY was interested in a lengthy debate, their opinion is sticking. They've misinterpreted the sources at every turn, and there's no way I can compete with that. – PeeJay 13:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)