Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:25, 3 November 2006

Wikipedian filing request:

• Yajaec (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

• Folken de Fanel (talk · contribs)

Misplaced Pages pages this pertains to:

• Gemini Saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Saint Seiya (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
  • 29 Saga problem: Controdiction and Conflicts with other member
  • 30 Request for Medium with extensive Saint Seiya knowledge and reliable credential on Misplaced Pages
  • 31 Yajaec's edits
• User talk:Yajaec (edit | user | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:Folken de Fanel (edit | user | history | links | watch | logs)

Questions:

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

• Answer:Yes

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

• Answer: At first it seem like it's just disagreement on the info from the manga(comic book) regarding to the character "Saga's" possession. Now it seem like the other user is nick picking all the fact info I've provided even accuse me of manipulating fact to prove that section of article is false. I can and will provide that manga page info if needed (I'm not sure how to go about posting a page of comic on wiki or if that violate any rule?)

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

• Answer:I tried posting on the talk page and asking for 3rd party as mediation since the conversation between the other user and I have become heated and I felt resentment from the other user.

problem: Controdiction and conflicts with Other member for Medium with extensive Saint Seiya knowledge and reliable credential on Misplaced Pages edits

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

• Answer:I would like someone to help or step-in and help resolve this in a civilized manner. I care about the article and for the article to provide correct facts because I've seen a lot of out side source quoting and using Wiki as a reliable source. Along the way I do not wish to create resentment from other user at the end of this issue.

Summary:

In the "Gemini Saga" page under the section of "Saga: Dual Nature or Evil Entity?" It talked about that the Spirit who possessed Saga was possibly Hades's spirit (with no fact source, the only thing talked about in the article later is Shun's possession and the writer is comparing the two event and draws conclusion, I believe that's a POV) There's also a controdiction in the page that says "He(Saga) wanted to take over Sanctuary and gain control of Athena's power to defend the world from the incoming threats of Poseidon and Hades..."

I edited it and user Folken de Fanel revert it, so I tried to talked to user Folken de Fanel that this is a controdiction, if Saga is possessed by Hades' spirit, why would he say he wanted to protect the world from Hades too? Also since user Folken de Fanel displayed knowledge of manga(comic book) I told him about in the manga in the later chapter clearly stated that Hypnos and Thanatos told Pandora that Hades will be born as her brother in spirit form but will not physically be in the world till the Seal of Athena on the Tower of 108 star is broken, until then, Pandora is to protect Hades' spirit. Here clearly shows that the spirit of Hades is with Pandora all these time and not the one with Saga during the same period. (I can and will provide you with that manga page if needed)

User Folken de Fanel kept argue that since both Saga and Shun(whom was chosen to be Hades' physical body on earth) have the same black hair after possession in manga, therefore it's the same spirit (I see this as a POV from him which he denies). And when I provided the manga info stated above, he accused me of changing the wording and makes up facts or Original Research. (If needed, I'm willing to provide that manga page to show that's what it says, maybe not exact to the wording but it's true).

I tried to talk nicely with him but it just seem like user Folken de Fanel just doesn't want to listen or come to a common ground. I told him that if I said anything that offened him, I apologize because I do not wish to create resentment between users.

I can't seem to get through to him, he even reverted my edit twice after I provided the facts. I would need help with getting through user Folken de Fanel. If you have spoted anything that I've done was wrong during the progress, please let me know, I'm willing to correct it for I truely care about the info we provide on Wiki. Thank you.

Discussion:

Hey there, I'm glad to be able to help you out.

Have you considered filing a RfC on this article? By soliciting input from a number of Wikipedians who are familiar with this subject (certainly more so than I), you can help to build a consensus on what should be in the article. You will of course be able to make your point (and I will be able to help you with the more procedural aspects--anime and manga are alien subjects to me, so I won't be able to help you with the substance of your argument), and Folken--should he choose to participate--will be able to make his, and hopefully a consensus--one way or the other--can be reached.

Obviously, if consensus is in favor of Folken then you will need to let the article reflect that unless and until you are able to swing consensus your way--or you may find their arguments convincing. And if consensus is in your favor and Folken continues to refuse to cooperate, we can move on to other measures.

Anyway, I'm going to go eat lunch and then I'll post on Folken's talk page letting him know about this while I continue to familiarize myself with the matter. Hope I can help you work this out! Kurt Weber 16:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping, I tried to start by requestion other user as 3rd party medium, but it seem like although many people contribute to the article but none seem willing to be involved in this "debate" maybe afraid to be caught up in the "cross fire". I'm not familiar with the RfC but I'll try to look it up and see if any one will respond to this at all. Thank you again.Yajaec 16:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, he just called me Stupid...I'm not sure how I'm going work with this...it's frustrating, I will post a RfC in the Saint Seiya Talk page.Yajaec 16:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, a few comments now that I've had some time to look over this some more:

1. When you file a RfC, you should also add a link and description of it in the central RfC listing at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature; otherwise, others who might have something to add are not likely to find out about it. I'll go ahead and do this for you, but you might want to take a look at it and see if you agree with the summarizations I've made.
2. I am going to contact Folken to let him know what's going on; I am going to propose that both of you agree to keep your hands off the page until this matter is settled, and as a show of good faith I would like to let him keep the page at his preferred version until then. Are you willing to agree to this?
3. Folken's threat to give you "proper vandalism warnings" is a bit over the top--just because you added content that he believes is false--even if he's right--does not make it vandalism; for it to be vandalism you would have to be acting in bad faith, which I believe is clearly not the case here. As he's not an admin there's nothing he can do about it; he'd have to get someone else to do it for him, and no sane admin would block you for this. Even if the admin was lazy and didn't bother to check if his allegations had merit, any block placed would be quickly removed once I pointed out the situation. So, you don't have anything to worry about here. I'll make sure to explain this to him as well.
4. Admittedly, I know next to nothing about anime and manga, but I wonder if what you both are really doing is simply trying to draw conclusions that are not explicitly stated in any source document (whether the anime/manga itself or critical reviews or analyses of it). Remember that, per our NPOV policy, an encyclopedia really should not be doing this. An encyclopedia article should simply report on the current state of research and work on the subject, and leave it to the reader to draw his own conclusions. If you or Folken have verifiable sources for either conclusion, then by all means write them into the article--but don't try to present either one as undisputed fact. Remember NPOV--present all the sides of an issue and all the supporting arguments, but let the reader decide for himself which is correct. And if you don't have verifiable sources but are merely posting your own speculations, then they should be yanked out altogether.

A bit of explanation with regards to what I mean by "verifiable sources": Let's say you are arguing over whether Objective Corp. was founded in 1884 or 1892. Neither you nor your opponent should be adding your OWN arguments to the article, even if you have verifiable data backing them up. What I mean by "verifiable sources" is that if you have, say, a scholarly essay written by someone else which claims that Objective Corp. was founded in 1884, and your opponent has one saying it was founded in 1892, then you should note that there is a debate as to its founding and run through the arguments of BOTH sides. But an encyclopedia is not a place to add your OWN arguments for one side or another.

Kurt Weber 16:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Reply

1. Thanks for adding that for me, I didn't know that area need to be file too.

2. I have been patient enough to keep myself from starting an reverting war on the page, I don't mind waiting longer.

3. Thank you for stating that, I know he can't do anything like that because through out the talk posting, I have stated clearly of what I'm doing. The only thing that bothers me a bit is that he kept insulting me and making personal attacks and accusations, I wonder if Wiki have admin personal that keep user in check of things like that and faul langugues.

4. I have been trying to get the point accross by stating only the fact and trying not to add any additional explaination. My previous edit regarding to the spirit of "Ares" is clear that, it's is often debated amoungst fans and I did not put statment stating the spirit "IS" Ares, however, Folken kept accuse me of making that claim. Over the past weeks as I become more and more familiar with Misplaced Pages, I become in understand of keeping to the NPOV. I would like the article to be neutural also and I don't mind if Folken stated in article saying in manga, both character have black hair for that IS the fact from manga. However, in current article he adds a sequence of facts to lead reader to his POV of the identity of the spirit. If possible, I would like someone else to rewrite the article in the NPOV way so that neither Folken or I can be involved due to this heated talk, but it seem like so far none of the other user want to be involve or maybe afraid to be caught up in this fire storm.

I do have the manga that stated the facts I talked about and I'm willing to go as far as scan in the page and link it with the section of the article (I'm not sure about the copyright law if it's ok to do such thing for references or maybe just provide only info such as the ISBN# and issue# and pages# which I do have that) but I begin to feel that Folken has resentment toward me, so no matter how I talk to him or how I edit the article to as NPOV as possible, he see it as me manipulating the article to my liking (you can tell from the way he answers to my posting on talk pages). So much frustration, I only hope other user will soon show up and post what they have to say on the issue.

Again, thank you for doing this, as you are not familiar with the subject, I don't care to come out to be the right one or the wrong one, as long as the article reflects what both animation and manga presents.Yajaec 16:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Followup:

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

• Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

• Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

• Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

• Answer:

AMA Information

Case Status: Template:AMA case status

Advocate Status:

• Accepted by Kurt Weber 15:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)