Contents
- 1 Arguments ON User talk:123.208.65.230 & in the edits summary of West Ta East
- 2 Gary Wilson (author)
- 3 José A. Cabranes
- 4 Jesse Lee Peterson
- 5 Camille Vasquez
- 6 Byrd Spilman Dewey
- 7 Tewodros I
- 8 Asian Australians in politics
- 9 List of conspiracy theories
- 10 Agriculture in Singapore
- 11 First-person shooter
- 12 USA
- 13 Medieval Technology
- 14 177 (number)
- 15 Lavender oil
Arguments ON User talk:123.208.65.230 & in the edits summary of West Ta East
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 am a Gold member of Mim Ra Official Studios and have watched the how by paying for it before anyone and it's premiere, hence I make edits accordingly to the actual storyline and mainly backed UP by the main sources from ABC News and VICE. Issue, @BONADEA keeps reverting the actual facts of the show as if she hs watched the show and according to her edits it seems as SHE/HE has not even read there sources and is going by their own accord. WEST TA EAST page and MTV Love School keeps on getting undo and reverted when I have actually done the work and watched entire shows and have only corrected or added missing information. I feel @Bonadea is being biased I don't know on what basis. Maybe I am wrong but the information I write is 100% in accordance to sources if you actually read till end or pay to watch the show. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:123.208.65.230 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Maybe explaining to the other party that the information I've written is backed with Facts and in accordance to the sources and I should stop being targeted solely any this user as it feels like bullying and for them to non longer make edits on subjects they do not hold enough information or if they haven't read the News Articles. Summary of dispute by @BonadeaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:123.208.65.230 & in the edits summary of West Ta East discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Gary Wilson (author)
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 This page on a now dead writer and TED talk activist has been edited in a way to suggest that his views have no scientific support, and it seems to me to rewrite the history of the many disputes he had with people who disagreed with his views. The page also seems to emphasize certain aspects of his thinking which was not part of his activism (that he was a leader of the cult Karezza, which does not seem to be a cult and for which no proof of his leadership is provided.) I keep posting citations to articles which offer contrary views to the ones expressed in the page and these keep being removed. The science in this area is emergent, but it seems to me to be biased to one view, and to unnecessarily smear the man. For example a link to a cover story that cites his work at TIME magazine has been removed. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I was hoping that a neutral party could arbitrate on what might be a fair portrayal of the man's contribution and role in the so-called "porn wars." At this time, his entry seems to me to be very one-sided, accusing of anti-semitism and cult-leadership. (I do not take a side in the porn wars, just want them to be accurately portrayed, but even my small adjustments quickly get shut down.) Summary of dispute by Potatochipsegs-zs8-1judoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by GAVERushaMiciNGSlANGPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Gary Wilson (author and activist) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
José A. Cabranes
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 Snickers2686 and I have disagreed over how to categorize the undergraduate degree-granting institution of a dozen federal judges who received their bachelor's degree from Columbia University. Many of the judges graduated from Columbia College, the main undergraduate liberal arts college of Columbia University, and there are a number of official biographies, New York Times articles, official alumni publications by Columbia, and even resumes indicating that they have graduated from Columbia College. However, Snickers2686 has been reverting the "Columbia College (New York) alumni" category to "Columbia University alumni" category and deleting the relevant entries from the page "List of Columbia College alumni" by insisting that the biographies of the Federal Judicial Center should take precedence over all other articles and calling other sources "incorrect," but I do not see any evidence suggesting that his claim has been an established consensus on Wikipedia. I have pointed this out to Snickers2686 but he has avoided addressing my questions and refused to consider the fact that more accurate sources exist elsewhere about their education qualifications. For example, federal judge Jose A. Cabranes' official biography on his federal court webpage says that he graduated from Columbia College as opposed to Columbia University. It seems that from the editing history of Cabranes' page that Snickers2686 also has the same dispute with another editor named Wallnot. As of June 16, he still has not replied to my questions and comments nor on the discussion I opened on Cabranes' talk page. I do not wish to engage in an edit war as I respect Snickers2686's work, experience, and dedication in creating all those federal judge articles and verifying their information. Therefore, I am raising the issue here, hoping it can be resolved through third-party mediation and hoping Snickers2686 can directly respond to my questions and concerns. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? User_talk:Snickers2686 Talk:Jos%C3%A9_A._Cabranes How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A unbiased opinion on how to categorize the judges' alumni status as either "Columbia College (New York) alumni" or "Columbia University alumni," and whether the JFC biographies should take precedence in federal judge biographies on Wikipedia when it comes to categorizing educational qualifications, even when a preponderance of evidence, including official U.S. government biographies, personal resumes, alumni magazines, news reports, and other 3rd party sources are showing otherwise. Summary of dispute by Snickers2686Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
CatchedY contends that because the court bio and/or school publication lists Cabranes as graduating from Columbia College and not Columbia University then the category should be Columbia College alumni, yet Cabranes' FJC bio says he graduated from Columbia University, so I contend that it should be Columbia University alumni. A search of FJC's database returns only 19 judges that they say graduated from "Columbia College" and Cabranes is not listed. José A. Cabranes discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Jesse Lee Peterson
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 On 6/16/2022 The Church Militant aired a documentary detailing the allegations of homosexual misconduct by the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson. [1] References
Larry Hockett left a message on your talk page in "June 2022". Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. I responded by saying it is not disruptive editing or poorly sourced. It is better sourced than allegation against Jimmy Swaggart with more credible victims. The public deserves to be warned.
Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC) It's not unsourced or poorly sourced content. The link is to a credible documentary by a credible organization. It actually should be on the site to prevent a predator from taking advantage of people which you would see if you watched the documentary. Tedw2 (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Not sure. I think the readers should be able to view the link and determine for themselves if the source is credible. I don't think Larry Hockett has even watched the documentary. Summary of dispute by Larry HockettPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There's a pattern emerging in which Tedw2 is edit warring and using an unreliable source to make a contentious allegation about a living person. I'm encouraged by the fact that the user has started to discuss the matter on his user talk page. (I was replying to it when the user filed this.) Once his misconceptions about reliable sources, edit warring and BLP editing are corrected, I'm optimistic that there will be little need for further discussion. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jesse Lee Peterson discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Camille Vasquez
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Camille Vasquez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Throast (talk · contribs)
- Strattonsmith (talk · contribs)
- Bangabandhu (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Disagreement over whether to include the name of the (at this point) non-notable law firm she works at. Following persistent reinstatement of the disputed material despite BLPUNDEL concerns, a discussion was started on the talk page.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Camille Vasquez#Brown Rudnick User talk:Bangabandhu#"Brown Rudnick"
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
An unbiased take on the issue by "disinterested" editors would be appreciated.
Summary of dispute by Strattonsmith
Summary of dispute by Bangabandhu
Camille Vasquez discussion
- Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by moderator (Vasquez)
I am willing to try to resolve this dispute in either of two ways. First, if the three editors agree, I will provide a Fourth Opinion. Second, if at least one editor requests an RFC, I will compose and start a Request for Comments. Please read the rules and comply with the rules.
So, will each editor please state in one or two paragraphs what they think are the issues, in particular, what they want changed, or left the same. Also, do you want me to offer a Fourth Opinion, and do you want an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes this should have gone to RFC. I've never seen this forum before and have no idea why it would end up here.12:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC) Bangabandhu (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First statements by editors (Vasquez)
I will repeat what I've already laid out at the talk page: I think the name of the law firm Vasquez works for, particularly, should be left out. This is because, without the firm being notable, inclusion of the name would be trivial; including it serves no purpose at this point in time unless one has a vested interest in promoting the law firm. This revision excludes the name while still giving sufficient context. Simply arguing that the name is verifiable does not justify including it because "Wikipedia is not everything".
Looking at the back-and-forth at the talk page, I have no confidence that me and the other two editors will be able to agree, so an RFC might be appropriate. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The law firm has now also been added to the infobox, which I would remove accordingly. Throast (talk | contribs) 10:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually read the requirements for notability? An entry is not necessary. There's abundant "coverage in independent sources" for example here, here, here, here, here, here, and more Bangabandhu (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by moderator (Vasquez)
User:Bangabandhu - Did you read Rule 8? Do not reply to the other editors. Reply only to me.
Any editor may make a statement. However, I will be composing an RFC within 24 hours. I will also ask the editors in the RFC not to argue with each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't read Rule 8, but I understand now and will reply only to you. You should know that your RFC is different than the matter in question. At issue here is whether there should be any mention of Brown Rudnick in the entry. The way it was posed to other editors asks whether Brown Rudnick belongs in the lede. It's placement in the lede might be worthy of an RFC, but it's different than what we were discussing. Bangabandhu (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second statements by editors (Vasquez)
You need not worry—I am not particularly paying attention to the trial! I think including a notable person's employer is important to do and it should not be removed unless said person (or someone representing them) request this info be removed. It is only one line, can be removed at a request, and may help a highschooler writing an essay someday (highly improbable, I know). There's my two cents, but take them with a grain of salt. 𝙰𝙶𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚄𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚗𝚊𝚖𝚎𝙲𝚑𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 (ramble) 00:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Back-and-forth discussion (Vasquez)
Byrd Spilman Dewey
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview another user keeps deleting a paragraph from the article that mentions a biography about Byrd Spilman Dewey and that the book won an award. The same user changed a heading incorrectly as well. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have tried to contact the person via messaging but they did not reply. They merely made the same edits again. They offer no explanation as to why the edits were made.
17 June 2022 curprev 22:09, 17 June 2022 Flahistory talk contribs 20,799 bytes +413 Undid revision 1093624659 by Curiositykeeper (talk) This will go to dispute resolution and be reported as vandalism. undo Tag: Undo curprev 22:08, 17 June 2022 Flahistory talk contribs 20,386 bytes 0 Undid revision 1093624706 by Curios How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The user making the edits needs to supply the evidence that the information is incorrect.
Summary of dispute by CuriositykeeperPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I removed the sentence "That the book served as an autobiography was confirmed in the 2012 biography of the Deweys, Pioneering Palm Beach: The Deweys and the South Florida Frontier, where the authors were able to match land records and events to the book's storyline. The Historical Society of Palm Beach County awarded the book the Fannie James Award for Pioneer Research Achievement" from the page on Dewey because it is not germane to a biography of Byrd Dewey. It is a promotion for the book that Flahistory wrote. These statements are not in the citations, but in the text and are solely promotional and do not add to our understanding of Dewey. There are also errors on the page concerning whether creating a plat of a section of town constitutes "founding." The town of Boynton was referred to as "Boynton" for several years before the Deweys platted the town. It had a train station, a post office, farms, and was included in the federal census as "Boynton" before the Deweys platted their property in preparation for sale. (a plat is a map, drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land, including streets, blocks, and lots) It's not that I don't think that Byrd should not be celebrated, but aggrandizing her is mainly to promote her book. Flahistory has figured out who I am and has attempted to contact me several ways including social media. I would have been happy to continue discussion on the Talk page, but am starting to feel harassed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiositykeeper (talk • contribs) 11:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Byrd Spilman Dewey discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Tewodros I
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 A big dispute over a tiny detail. Historically accuracy of the use of the term Adalite versus Walashma. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Tewodros_I#Cambridge_source How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Uninvolved editors (preferably with some knowledge) input can help establish a wider consensus on what is more historically accurate. Summary of dispute by MagherbinPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Tewodros I discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Asian Australians in politics
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 User:ITBF keeps redirecting the article without discussion. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SCN_1999 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Asian_Australian_politicians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asian_Australians_in_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ITBF How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I just want a discussion about the subject. Summary of dispute by ITBFPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Asian Australians in politics discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note Notification needed on the participating editor's talk page. Also- More editors have been involved with this discussion on the various talk pages - all of them should be included here. Finally- we require extended discussion attempts on the article talk page before coming here- it does not appear those have happened. If they have- please show where. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
List of conspiracy theories
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 The page includes no conspiracies related to anti-feminism, lgbtq issues, or fandom/celebrity conspiracies despite them being well-documented elsewhere on the site. This is a clear gender bias on the page that prioritizes conspiracies created by and for cishet men and erases gender/sexuality marginalization as well as communities formed by women & gender/sexual minorities. Via his own profile page, user Slatersteven who reversed even preliminary edits of this issue seems to not be informed of or interested in learning about these conspiracies before deleting all edits made to the page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_conspiracy_theories How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Page needs to be investigated to determine whether the assessment of gender bias on the page is accurate. Summary of dispute by SlaterstevenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
And only one was added, relativity (if not totally) minor one Larries. We can't have every conspiracy theory that has ever existed, so we need to choose only major and/or long-lasting ones. Nor is there an attempt to "erases gender/sexuality marginalization as well as communities formed by women & gender/sexual minorities", hell I have even said that Gay agenda may well be valid for inclusion. Also at least one of the "conspiracy theories" they wanted to add is not one. It is just a group that believes in a specific conspiracy theory (and so that is the one that should be added). Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] They continue to add the material. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I agree, but it may be moot now. Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] List of conspiracy theories discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note First- all participants are reminded to not discuss the dispute before a volunteer opens this page. Unfortunately, due to personal issues, I cannot commit to mediating at this time (I will be without internet from tomorrow for 5 days). Next- there are a lot of behavior issue accusations being tossed around- these are not to be handled on this board. Before a volunteer agrees to take the case- all involved users must agree that these issues are not really the problem and it is indeed a content issue. If all involved editors agree to this, a mediator will begin the process as soon as possible. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Zeroth statement by moderator on conspiraciesI will try to mediate this dispute, but only if the editors agree to accept my moderation with my ground rules. Please read the rules. I will ask you to read them again, so I am only asking you to read them once at this time. We will only discuss the content of the article, not other editors, and we will only discuss specific changes to the article. We will not discuss whether the article is biased, unless you wish to correct a bias by adding or subtracting something. Do the editors agree to a moderated discussion of specific article content? Please reply below with a yes or no. You may optionally state what you want to change in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Zeroth statements by editors on conspiracies
|
Agriculture in Singapore
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 My edit about the first cultured meat product on the market was reverted by Singaporeano, who thinks it was "blatant advertising". On their talk page I gave my reasons for disagreeing w/ such an assessment, but Singaporeano still insists on their initial assessment. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? by providing a third opinion Summary of dispute by SingaporeanoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Agriculture in Singapore discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
First-person shooter
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 There is a dispute regarding how the information in the "history" section is organized, with two competing versions of the section. One version has been argued for on the talk page, and these arguments have gone unchallenged for over half a year. The other version is not being defended by anyone, but user "MrOllie" keeps reverting the section to that version anyway with no reason or explanation and has ignored multiple requests to discuss the issue on the talk page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:73.70.13.107#June_2022 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Revert to my most recent edit, lock the article, and tell MrOllie to take the dispute to the talk page like a big boy instead of my personal page. Summary of dispute by MrOlliePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
First-person shooter discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
USA
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 am bringing this matter to volunteer(s) to help with a dispute that I have especially with reviewer, Theroadislong, as well as with Rusalkii, who insist that my Draft: Leadership-as-Practice reads as an essay when I believe it certainly does not. Unfortunately, it appears that this criticism has taken on a life of its own and I fear that these reviewers are not seemingly able to bend from their impressions, guided by the history of the reviews of this prospective important contribution to the subject of leadership. I have had other entries fully and firstly accepted in wikipedia and wikisummaries and I believe my draft is encyclopedic and ready for publication in wikipedia. Minimally, I request an impartial review by someone willing to read the draft without being guided by an impression or prior history or stereotype implanted by these reviewers. Thank you. Joe Raelin How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have appealed to these reviewers to give this draft a fair read without prior bias, but they have seemingly shown unwillingness to do so. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? To either review the draft without bias or to find someone who could do so. Summary of dispute by TheroadislongPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RusalkiiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
USA discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Medieval Technology
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 In the article Medieval Technology, I noticed that Leonardo da Vinci was referred to simply as da Vinci. I corrected it to the full name, but editor Ravenswing has kept undoing the change. I noted in the Talk section that it's a long-established practice in scholarly writing to refer to him either as Leonardo or by his full name, and that da Vinci isn't a surname, nor has it ever been accepted as the equivalent of Leonardo or his full name in formal writing. They replied that that using da Vinci to refer to Leonardo has been an established practice "for centuries." When I asked for some evidence, they gave a list of place names and geographical features, all whose names have their origins in the late 20th century. I pointed out that it was irrelevant to the discussion on the proper form of Leonardo's name in formal writing. They also pleaded common use, though I'm certain that common use doesn't trump Wikipedia's policy of favoring an academic style and formal register for its articles. Unfortunately, there's not enough space to list sources, but I can provide links to Britannica Online, Oxford Art Online, the Met (NYC), the National Gallery (UK and US), and the Chicago Manual, among others, to support my argument. In fact I've been unable to find a single authoritative source that gives the name as da Vinci or that places him under D or even V. I'm frankly very puzzled by Ravenswing's adamant rejection of a perfectly valid edit. If they have anything to support their rejection of the edit, let them present it and make their case. If not, then let the edit stand. I think it clearly improves the quality of the article by bringing a snippet of its language into line with the prevailing academic practice. Thank you for your time. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Medieval_technology How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I'd simply like for the edit to stand, as it is a valid, uncontroversial edit. Beyond naming conventions, a proper name should be given in full in its first appearance in an article, and it would also make the name congruent with the other full names given in the same paragraph. If no resolution can be achieved, at least I'll have had my say and had my argument validated.
Medieval Technology discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
177 (number)
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 suggest we have the following properties for 177, since David Eppstein is warring my edits:
These values are not unimportant. They define some of the characteristics of the number 177. To take out these properties leaves this number less notable. I am seeking mediation, as I have needed to continue reverting misguided edits by David Eppstein. He alone is not one to choose what goes on a page, or not; and neither am I. So if we can get proper input that would be great. Radlrb (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I removed two of the properties he removed, and still did permit the inclusion of three properties that are notable (as a Blum integer and 60-gonal number). How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Find a middle ground, I removed some and he should accept some. Thank you. Summary of dispute by David EppsteinPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
177 (number) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Lavender oil
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 The article on Lavender oil as I found it claimed there was no evidence that Lavender oil could treat anxiety or insomnia. The citation for this was a "drugs.com" article that didn't actually make any such claim, so I edited the article to reflect "drugs.com"'s actual content. However I then noticed that the "drugs.com" article only cited very old articles, the newest of which was from 2018. So I added the findings of a 2019 meta-analysis to the Wikipedia article. This was then immediately removed as an "unreliable source" despite being from the 7th most cited journal in the world. Attempts to engage in conversation with the user who reverted the changes was simply met with more unexplained requests for a "better source" and also conceding that the current "drugs.com" citation is not a good source for the claims being defended either. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Provide guidance on if any of the multiple peer-reviewed research articles I mentioned on lavender oil (and others that exist), as well as the "drugs.com" article should be included in the Wikipedia article. Help decide which sources discussed thus far should be considered appropriate for this article. Possible help in finding a new source if none of the existing ones are up to standard. Summary of dispute by AlexbrnPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ZefrPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Although a meta-analysis, the 2019 source suggested by the IP editor covers weak primary research in 5 studies, 4 of which were by the same German author in journals of dubious quality. A review of weak research is still a weak source for the encyclopedia. The original edit by the IP was far too detailed and overstated from such a weak review. The previous version concerning the use of oral lavender oil for anxiety was There is no good evidence to support the use of lavender oil for treating dementia or anxiety, which is true and supported by the Drugs.com review (updated in Oct 2021), which stated concerns about the research on oral Silexan for anxiety: the presence of significant heterogeneity, lack of blinding, small sample sizes, and small number of studies (4 of which were by the same author) limit extrapolation of the results. Overall, the 2019 review by Yap et al. is unconvincing as a source, and leaves us with the conclusion there is no good evidence for using oral lavender oil to treat anxiety. Further, there is no WP:MEDSCI source to indicate any clinical organization recommends such treatment. Zefr (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lavender oil discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderator on lavender oilSlow down. I will act as the moderator. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to me and to the community. These ground rules will be in effect. Read the rules a second time. If you have questions, ask them rather than guessing. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements often only make the poster feel better but do not communicate effectively. Now, it appears that there are two intertwined sets of issues, about article content, and about the reliability of sources. This noticeboard discusses article content. If there is an issue about the reliability of a source, we can put the content discussion on hold while we ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard about source reliability. It also appears that the issue has to do with a statement about whether lavender oil (or its aroma) can be useful in relieving anxiety. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Each editor may post three paragraphs. The first paragraph should state what they either want changed in the article or what they want left the same. This is about article content. The second paragraph should state any questions about the reliability of sources. The third paragraph should ask any other questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] First statements by editors on lavender oil[Moved to here by moderator]
Second statement by moderator about lavender oilIf an editor requests an inquiry into the reliability of a source, I am now also asking that they state what article content it may affect. The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. The sources provide information for the article and other articles. It is true that the rules say not to edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Discussion on the article talk page is permitted, and may be taken into account or may be ignored, so do not assume that a comment on the article talk page is being read, and do not assume that it is not being read. I do not plan to try to roll back any edits that were made to the article. It appears that one editor is challenging the reliability of drugs.com because they say that it is controlled by Big Pharma. If that is not the issue, please state what the issue is. If you have not yet made a statement, please make a statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Second statements by editors about lavender oilBack-and-forth discussion
|