| Revision as of 22:21, 26 May 2005 editSam Spade (talk | contribs)33,916 edits →[] and []← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:35, 12 November 2018 edit undoRGloucester (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers38,757 edits rdr to mainTag: New redirect | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{shortcut|]}} | |||
| {{rfm-header}} | |||
| ---- | |||
| <!-- please post your request at the bottom of this list - thanks --> | |||
| === ], ], and ] === | |||
| I have tried my best to ask this user to justify his edits and have explained in detail why they are totally unmerited. Basically this user is trying to slant a few articles very heavily to PowerPC when it is '''totally''' inappropriate. For example, why should PowerPC be given more mention on the ] article when there are literally hundreds of other processor architectures we could list? PowerPC is a notable architecture, but it isn't any more important than the many many others I can think of. I have confronted the user with these facts and his only response is to re-add his edits, give me a list of applications of the PowerPC processors (which, I might add, are applications of many many different types of CPUs), and post profanity on my talk page. The bulk of this discussion can be found on my ]. I'm somewhat tempted not to even ask for mediation here since the user has shown little civility or willing to budge on his ridiculous position, but I'd rather give him a chance to be reasoned with first. -- ] 14:06, 2005 May 7 (UTC) | |||
| :Currently the user continues to add back content without explaining it. He continues to insist that IBM is the originator of ] rather than the ], which is neither true nor in line with the corresponding Misplaced Pages articles. He also continues to add a large list of PowerPC processors to both the ] and the ] pages without any justification. Granted, detail is desirable, but not when a third or less of what he is posting will suffice to make the point. The volume of statistics he cites just makes the page unnecessarily long and makes it seem as if PowerPC is more abundant or plentiful than the many other CPU architectures listed. Could someone please assist here? I hope I'm not the only one who believes these edits are confusing and lend nothing of value to the articles in question. -- ] 00:24, 2005 May 8 (UTC) | |||
| :*One of the requirements of mediation is that both parties agree to it. Have you informed ] of your request for mediation? ''']''']] 22:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ack! I'm so sorry, I'm such a fool for forgetting that... I reverted the articles again with a message requesting his presence here, and added a similar message to my talk page. Hopefully he'll see that and post his concerns here. -- ] 14:44, 2005 May 9 (UTC) | |||
| :::Currently the only remaining conflict involves a quasi edit-war surrounding the CPU article. In the CPU article the anonymous editor asserts that ] is IBM's creation alone rather than that of the ]. The justification he provides is that "all companies license PowerPC from IBM" and a MacNews World interview . I assert that PowerPC is an open architecture that anybody can implement WITHOUT having to license, and cite an IBM developerWorks article to back my claim up. When the intervew he cites talks about Motorola licensing IBM PowerPC technology, it refers to them licensing specific IBM '''implementations,''' not the open PowerPC ] itself. I can also dig up links where IBM itself provides the entire ISA of PowerPC for download, free of charge or licensing. | |||
| :::It is true that IBM soley designed the ] architecture that was largely the base of what is now called PowerPC, but totally ignoring Motorola and Apple's roles is fallacy. As a small example, SIMD instructions (i.e. ]/VMX in PowerPC chips) were never (and still are not) a part of IBM's POWER design; the addition of SIMD units to PowerPC chips was mostly motivated by Apple and Motorola. Apple, one of the largest consumers of IBM PowerPC implementations, is heavily reliant on the SIMD instructions provided by the AltiVec units. I somewhat get the feeling that this user isn't doing a good job distinguishing between PowerPC as an instruction set architecture and PowerPC as the various ''implementations'' of said ISA. | |||
| :::Note that the related Misplaced Pages articles on the matter (PowerPC, AIM alliance) support my standpoint{which is also wrong}, not his. A handful of other users have also reverted his changes in favor of my own. I don't want to carry on an edit war, and would like to have this resolved nicely. See my ] for a few more details on just how well our past discussions have gone. -- ] 03:21, 2005 May 20 (UTC) | |||
| >>>>>>>>>>>>PowerPC is a registered tradmark of IBM corp. NOT AIM NOT MOTOROLA NOT APPLE BUT "IBM" | |||
| ::::So what? Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds; that doesn't indicate anything about its Free status. It simply means that Linus has some legal leverage to somewhat control the use of the name. PowerPC is still an '''open ISA''' that does not have to be licensed from IBM to implement. You still haven't provided any counterpoint to this, or have provided reason why we should TOTALLY IGNORE Apple and Motorola, who were instrumental in the development of the AltiVec/VMX, one of the most important features in higher-end PowerPC cores. -- ] | |||
| >>>>>>PowerPC consist of the 32-bit operands of the 64-bit POWER architecture .... | |||
| altavec/vmx an extension to book E of the PowerPC architecture.. | |||
| open standard=yes : ibm defines the standard of PowerPC to ensure that it works with the POWER Architecture | |||
| ::::You don't read Misplaced Pages very much, do you? ] was not originally a 64-bit design, neither was PowerPC. What's more, you have things a bit backwards; IBM maintains a high degree of compatibility with the PowerPC spec, but that's because the ISA hasn't changed all that much since PowerPC64 was defined. Now, what was your point again? -- ] 20:05, 2005 May 23 (UTC) | |||
| >>>>>>>>uberpenquin wikipedia is a menagerie of dis-conjointed ideas and beliefs with the hope that future refinements will find an equilibrium between fact and fiction. i do not profess to be an expert on all thing POWER/PowerPC, but if i were you would respectfully allow my revisions, that same courtesy would be offered to you if you knew of all things related to POWER/PowerPC. but neither case is true. i really don't have a problem with the term aim alliance but in the context in which its used. to promulgate the belief that each member contributed 1/3 to the creation of PowerPC is a terrible injustice exacted upon the hundreds of engineers at IBM research, and marginalizes all previous endeavors in system design(system\360,AS\400,RS\6000,.........etc.) as wasted efforts. IBM never publicly disclosed the POWER ISA which was evolving from AS\400,RS\6000,system\360{199xAD), and later powerpc.I guest its easier to belief that it only needed about 50 engineers{i grossly exaggerated from memory,might be less} sent from Motorola/apple to IBM research before the public unveiling of the PowerPC 601 to synergize IBM’s IP into what is now POWER/PowerPC. the facility which would become the center for research&development for the apple/ibm/motorola{aim} alliance was located at _____{either ibm research campus/motorola site i’m tiredLookUpSomTimeNever}. | |||
| you keep on insisting that PowerPC is an openStandard and on this i agree. in 1996(i think) exponential technologies release 750(notSure,7??). but there was a dispute(dontRemeberDetails) between apple/motorola/exponentialTech. what became of ET (baughtByAIMdontRemeber) | |||
| :::::First of all, the S/360, S/38, AS/400, RS/6000, etc were all architected long before PowerPC/POWER came along (and POWER was named retroactively anyway), so let's just get that straight. The S/360 has almost ''nothing'' to do with PowerPC/POWER anyway, and the S/38 and AS/400 used a CISC architure called IMPI by IBM before Amazon was conceived and Belatrix was designed (and here the history and names get a bit convoluted). In fact, the '''original''' POWER, which first appeared in an RS/6000 ca. 1990, doesn't really even resemble PowerPC or what is now called POWER at all. I do not disagree that PowerPC is MAINLY IBM's doing, but it is not EXCLUSIVELY IBM's doing. By the same merit that it is unjust to say that all three contributed equally, it is unjust to pretend that Motorola and Apple did nothing at all. | |||
| :::::Now, currently the AIM alliance article DOES indicate that PowerPC was mostly IBM's work, and if you'd like to clarify that further I wouldn't object whatsoever. What I object to is ''ignoring'' Motorola and Apple, that is all. On a brief overview page like that, it is totally appropriate to say AIM alliance, and then on the more detailed pages elaborate that PowerPC was originally IBM's design, but was expanded some for use in lower-end computers, the original design re-named POWER, the AIM alliance formed, etc. So if you want to expand the history on the ] page some (which needs to be done anyway), or indicate that the ] built mostly upon IBM's previous work in that article, I have no problems. However, I still cannot see a justification for ignoring Motorola and Apple simply because PowerPC is MOSTLY IBM's. -- ] 21:30, 2005 May 25 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I found a great article that plainly lays out the differences in POWER and PowerPC and clearly shows that they are NOT the same and NOT totally compatible. It was written by ], who is a long-time IBM engineer that designed the System/38 and AS/400 architectures and has a lot to do with the design of the POWER/PowerPC ISA. Please read this to clear up some of your misconceptions since it is written by an actual IBM engineer and not some third party that can misconstrue facts. -- ] 13:41, 2005 May 24 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Some of the things you have said indicate a somewhat disturbing lack of knowledge about this subject. Calling portions of an ISA "operands" is ''very'' loose terminology at best, and at worst totally incorrect. I'm not here to criticize your knowledge (only the edits you have made regarding the PowerPC article), but if you don't know what you're talking about you really shouldn't be insisting on your phrasing... In any case, you still have not provided justification for ignoring the significant roles that Motorola and Apple played in the birth of PowerPC. IBM holding the trademark means nothing, and while they did design most of what is now called PowerPC, it is by no means totally their creation. -- ] 22:38, 2005 May 23 (UTC) | |||
| === ] : Fadix & Coolcat === | |||
| Content dispute with possible POV issues at ]. Please see ] for details. No mediator has volunteered to take on this case yet. | |||
| :I'm taking a look now. Discussion at least seems civil. -]|] 20:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===] and ]=== | |||
| I have been unable to communicate with this user since I first encountered them, and feel they lack ]. I am requesting mediation as part of the ] process. (] | ] | ]) 12:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm afraid that I can't join Sam in requesting mediation, as the requisite steps that are supposed to come in the process prior to requesting it have not yet been attempted. I would therefore think this yet another example of Sam abusing wiki procedures whenever doing so would appear to produce the results he desires. However, I will happily take part in this procedure if said mediator hopes some good will come of it, and perhaps it will help clarify the reasoning behind Sam's behavior. ] 14:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Kev, I'm getting mixed messages from your post -- do you refuse mediation (on the grounds that you believe this is premature) or do you accept (I think mediators always hope good will come of the discussions they facilitate)? I appreciate your taking the time to clarify. ] 15:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm happy to accept and take part sincerely should there be a mediator who thinks they can help resolve the issue. That is my only condition. However, I think it is important to note that my personal position is that it is premature (given that the standard procedures were not followed), and I certainly don't want to waste anyones time if mediators agree that this is premature or believe that the issue is intractable. ] 22:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Given the above, are there any mediators willing to pursue this matter? (] | ] | ]) 12:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The above mentions nothing about what particular debates or conflics the two users are having, and user:Kevehs seems to have been inactive for a couple weeks, only lightly active before that. Again, its unclear, other than accusations of incivility, what the points are. Recommend archive. -]|] 20:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===] and ]=== | |||
| I'm requesting mediation on behalf of ] regarding several contentious discussions on battleground pages and what El_C feels is a lack of civility on Sam's part. ] (which has apparently been protected due to their disputes) and ] are good examples of what is at issue here. See talk pages for more. | |||
| Note that both El_C and Sam Spade have agreed, to me personally, to undergo mediation in advance of this request. Both are eager that this problem should not reach arbitration. Speedy redress would be welcomed. ] 02:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, Wally -- I'd love it if El C and Sam could provide the names of some mediators they would mutually trust to handle the dispute. Also, if each one could offer a brief list of agreements they want to mutually agree upon by the end of the mediation, that would provide a good starting point. ] 03:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I object to the statement "Both are eager that this problem should not reach arbitration". I frankly don't think thats true, and suggest a review of ], where information regarding that, as well as discussion of goals can be found. ] contains similar discussion of agreements sought. Similar to El C (@ ]), I'd accept users Ed Poor and Danny (altho I'm not ruling others out). (] | ] | ]) 06:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Should this be taken, Sam, to indicate you don't desire mediation? | |||
| :Also, while El_C is not terribly familiar with most of the Mediation Committee, he relates to me that both Danny and Ed Poor "enjoy confidence as mediators for this case." I echo this. ] 02:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Re: the former: Absolutely not, I stand by my advice that ] be reviewed, and have made clear thruout that I prefer compromise rather than escalation. (] | ] | ]) 12:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Please see ]. Cheers, (] | ] | ]) 16:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===External links in ]=== | |||
| Amid a recent campaign by the online community to make the Misplaced Pages article for Online poker the number one result in the search engine for that term, the page became the target of heavy vandalism and was subsequently locked for this reason. As the page was getting a large amount of traffic, I asked politely in IRC for an administrator to unlock the page so I could format the external links in ] format, as I often do, even for featured articles while they are featured so that they are more presentable and professional looking. In the past, no one has ever complained, and people typically thank me for it as it takes some work, however, user ] has claimed that what I did was vandalism. Several people, including at least one admin, have informed him on the talk page that his conception of vandalism is flawed, and I explained to him that since he was persisting even in the face of several users and an admin that it would be necessary for us to engage in the dispute resolution process to solve the problem, as he is the only person who views this as vandalism. At that point, user 2005 quietly left the scene for several days, abandoning the discussion. Then he came back, presumably after others were not looking, and without attempting to reengage those who were watching the article reverted the MLA formatting citing, once again, vandalism in his edit summary. He is now attempting to lure other users into revert wars and is sticking to his claim that it is vandalism. For clarity, here is the definition of the term, according to ]: | |||
| ''Vandalism is indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them—most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you wrote removed, moved to talk, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism.'' | |||
| --] 00:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Not surprisingly, Alterego persists in blatantly untrue actions. None of this has anything to do with MLA format. Zero. He used that pretense to make significant content edits to the article, and then tried to disguise this indisputable bad faith deletion, done under the cover of a protected article, by labeling the its as "m"/minor, and subsequently pretending the issue has something to do with formatting. His actions are the definition of bad faith, in particular because the content edits in questions have been debated extensively in the discussion for that article, which Alterego has chosen to not particpate in. I ignored Alterego's comments previously as the bad faith edits have been reverted, and he has thus far refused to justify in any way his completely inappropriate behavior, or participate in discussion over the content of the article. Once again even mentioning the MLA cover of the malicious editing shows a lack of remorse and a disinterest in dealing with any genuine issues involved. 00:49, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is incorrect. I ''immediately'' posted on the talk page that I forgot to mark an edit summary , and explained what I had done. This goes above and beyond a simple edit summary. As a matter of fact, it was only . You are using a lot of loaded phrases like "indisputable bad faith deletion", "bad faith edits", "completely inappropriate behavior", "malicious editing", "lack of remorse", and it is leading me to wonder if you are trolling. Look again at my and explain how any of these terms you are using describe improving the presentation of external links, something I do often. I don't understand your motivation here and I am not willing to engage in a revert war with you, as you were attempting to lure me (and others) into. --] 01:10, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I just want to make clear that I have not made a single edit to the 'content' of the article above the external links section, so please lets keep our discussion specific to that area. --] 01:18, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry that no one from the Mediation Committee replied before now. This was quite a few weeks ago. Is this problem still something which requires mediation? ]] 02:18, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===] and ]=== | |||
| * {{user|TDC}} | |||
| * {{user|Tony Sidaway}} | |||
| TDC will be notified of this request immediately. | |||
| As a result of a few encounters with TDC, and observing that he frequently seems to attract quite a lot of friction from other editors, I supported ] brought concerning his behavior. As a result of the confirmation that not only I but several others have found our encounters with him characterized by extreme rudeness, resort to personal attack, and somewhat determined edit warring, I decided that mediation would almost certainly help, if TDC was willing. He has accepted. I hope that by a mediated dialog we will be able to establish better communication, and that this will lead to less problematic behavior on his part, or at least more understanding on my part of his reasons for behaving as he does. --]|] 21:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Do either of you have any preference for a mediator? Those currently listed as active are ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ], though you may want to check their contributions to see whether they really are active. ]] 10:57, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : I have no preferences. Any mediator willing to help us to establish a rapport would be fine with me. --]|] 11:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===], ], anon user 4.22x.X.X, re ]=== | |||
| * {{user|Harro5}} | |||
| * {{user|Gzuckier}} | |||
| *'''HELP!!!''' Excuse me if this is lengthy, but it's getting out of hand and I'm wondering if I'm completely off base. On ] I added a section on murders of random students, the effects on Yale admissions, and how Yale handled the most recent such crime, '''in response to a suggestion on ]''' by ] who felt it was relevant, and with explanation in ] of my thinking as to relevance. ] apparently got inspired and added a similar segment to a lot of colleges which were then deleted from most of them, random murders of students by townspeople not being a big feature of life at MIT or for their admission process, for instance. See ] and ], as I wasn't in on it or privy to all the details. | |||
| **On April 24: | |||
| ***anon user 4.22x.X.X deleted the entire ] section from the Yale article, with only explanation being an edit summary ''Other high profile crimes - Not necessarily high profile; "significant" violates NPOV; deleted redundant material on the Jovin case, which already appears in the article on Jovin.'' Note: '''deleted entire miscellany section''', not just the high profile crimes section. | |||
| *** 14:40, 24 Apr 2005 I partially restored it, deleting some of crime section in consideration of user 4.22x.X.X's "suggestions", with edit summary ''why it was important for yale that this not be 'random murder''', i.e. the piece I did not delete as 'redundant'. | |||
| ***] '''deleted entire miscellany section again''', with only edit summary ''For reasoning see ]'', said link being where it was decided not to include his edits to MIT page, with no suggestion that he or others should remove similar section from Yale. | |||
| **On April 25: | |||
| *** 15:48, 25 Apr 2005 I restored miscellany section with edit summary wondering how deletion was ''supposedly somehow due to MIT's suicide rate.'', the target of the link which given in the edit summary of the deletion. | |||
| ***user 4.22x.X.X '''deleted entire miscellany section again''', with only an edit summary. ''Removed Vandalism from User: Gzuckier. For reasoning see ]'', same irrelevant link as before. Note '''accusing me of vandalism''' for restoring his unilateral edit, or bilateral if you include ] | |||
| *** 21:17, 25 Apr 2005 I restored miscellany section with edit summary ''reverted big chop by self-appointed VandalAvenger who appears to believe that the talk:MIT article forbids the yale article mentioning bladderball.'' I admit to getting annoyed, being called a vandal and all, but I still don't see link to MIT suicides as great justification for deleting section on Yale bladderball, frisbee, golf course, etc. with no other discussion. | |||
| **On April 26: | |||
| ***user 4.22x.X.X deleted more specifically high profile crimes section again, with only explanation repeat of edit summary: ''Removed Vandalism from User: Gzuckier''. Note again '''accusing me of vandalism''' for restoring his unilateral/bilateral edit. At least the rest of the miscellany section was spared this time. | |||
| ***03:07, 26 Apr 2005 I restored crimes section, explained thinking on ] and in ] for user 4.22x.X.X. | |||
| ***user 4.22x.X.X leaves message on ] complaining that I have "added no justification or argument to the discussion", have "an attitude of not wanting to discuss the issue in a serious manner" and request that ] report me for ''three revert rule violation''. Note 1: I have justified the section when I wrote it, on ], and on ]; whereas ] and user 4.22x.X.X have done nothing but post links to ] and call me a vandal. Note 2: I took pains to '''NOT''' violate the three revert rule, and did not. | |||
| ***] deleted high profile crimes section again, with only edit summary ''rv. added gzuckier to the Three Revert Rule violators list.'' | |||
| ***] attempts to report me for ''three revert rule violation'' on ''Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR''. Administrator notes that I did not make three reverts within 24 hours. | |||
| ***] (spontaneously without contact from or to me of any kind) restores section, with edit summary:''there's no reason to delete this material.'' | |||
| *So am I totally offbase here? ] 19:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :It might be best to start with discussions on the talk page before coming to mediation, which as far as I can tell, Harro5 hasn't done for the Yale article at all yet. However, he has now said he'd allow the changes at ], so perhaps the issue is already resolving itself without mediation? ]] 11:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === ] and ] vs. ] re: ]=== | |||
| Inability to break deadlock, onging revert war. Recent RfC did not bring any help from other editors. ] and ] complaint is that ], is attempting to use WP as a place for advocating against gurus. The complaint is basically that a ''general'', ''neutral'' encyclopedia article on gurus is filled with criticisms of gurus by a few Western anti-guru authors with what amounts to using the Misplaced Pages for advocacy, which is explicitly forbidden by Misplaced Pages policy. On the other hand, ], claims that the article needs to feature an extensive section on criticism of gurus because "even if these gurus did not commit crimes, they are controversial because they disappoint their followers because they often turn out to be very human and incompetent to bring the disciple to their promised moksha in spite of their claims to be saints etc, The concept of guru is very controversial in the West." and that "the negative opinion about gurus is the majority and hence deserves majority space.". ] replies that "gurus, is one of the most important concepts in Eastern religions (which are practiced by 1.3 billion people, not including Western New Agers and that hence the Western critics are a minority POV. Request page protection and mediation to break deadlock. --] 20:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I said that the criticism of the gurus can be large ''in the section about gurus in the West'' because ''there'' the majority view of gurus has been intensely criticized. I was not talking about the amount of criticism in the article in general. ] 20:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am willing to mediate. Seems like a minor matter of how to best represent the material. -]|] 22:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you Stevertigo. How do we proceed? --] 23:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===] vs. ] re: ]=== | |||
| ;Slrubenstein's summary of conflict | |||
| Rev of Bru reverts changes made by Slrubenstein. RoB is a POV warrior who has made it clear that he will not accept claims that important scholars accept that Jesus once existed: and . Slrubenstein accepts that some scholars reject the existence of Jesus, but maintains that most well-respected critical scholars accept Jesus' existence. Slrubenstein and RoB have argued over who is considered a respected scholar: . SR's criteria for "scholar" is someone who has a relevant PhD., teaches at a major accredited university, publishes books in academic presses and/or articles in peer-reviewed journals, ''regardless'' of whether their views coincide with SR's or not. RoB's criteria for "scholar" is anyone, whether they have credentials or not, who agrees with RoB's POV. | |||
| In short, I object to RoB's knee-jerk reverting of any change I make to the article, without any consideration for process (explaining his edits, responding to my explanations). Moreover, I object to his knee-jerk POV warrioring, refusing to accept views other than his own ] | ] 19:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am willing to accept this matter, if thats agreeable. This seems to be about a fairly basic issue of proper sources, and perhaps RoB would like to comment. -]|] | |||
| ;Rev of Bru comments | |||
| I would like to comment. That is a most unfair summary of events so far. I have repeatedly objected to user Slrubstein removing parts of the article which he does not like and repeatedly reverting my edits. | |||
| # I have always tried to compromise but there comes a point when compromise results in inaccuracies. | |||
| # I have repeatedly asked Slrubstein for a list of secular scholars who, on investigating the issue, have concluded that there definitely was a historical Jesus Christ. He has yet to reply with any. | |||
| # He did provide a list of non-secular scholars, but that is not what the dispute was regarding originally anyway, and is irrelevant. | |||
| # I provided a list of several secular scholars who dispute his existence. The current ratio of secular scholars who are skeptical vs accepting is hugely in favour of skeptical. IF he or anyone can provide a greater number of accepting secular scholars, then the article should be changed. If not, I don't see why his POV reverts should remain.] | |||
| :Slrubenstein's response to Rev of Bru's comments | |||
| # Can Rev of Bru provide one example of a compromise on his part? | |||
| # RoB says I have yet to provide a list of scholars who argue that Jesus existed? This is a flat-out lie. I provided a lengthy list on April 28: | |||
| # RoB says the list of scholars I provided are not secular, and thus irrelevant? This is a lie. RoB calls these scholars "non-secular" soleley because he disagrees with them. The scholars I listed are the most well-respected ''critical'' scholars of the NT. That he continues to falsely call these "non-secular" and to dismiss them as authorities is simply more evidence of his POV warrioring. | |||
| # RoB says he provided an extensive list of scholars? I explained why most of them are simply ''not'' "scholars" . His list includes a mechanical engineer, a geologist, and a German teacher. I grant that these may be authorities on mechanical engineering, geology, and German, but they are not scholars of the NT. The only reason RoB calls them "scholars" is because he agrees with them — another example of his POV warrioring (at the expense of the quality of this encyclopedia, which of course requires good research of good scholarship). ] | ] 18:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ;Mediator comments on issue of behaviour | |||
| # The use of blanket ] is improper outside of cases of vandalism or error. If their use is pervasive, this is grounds for a review by the ], where they will ascertain if such compounded behaviour breaches ]. -SV | |||
| ;Mediator comment on article issues | |||
| {{see|/SV:SR-Rob}} -SV | |||
| ;Narrative of discussion on Talk Page | |||
| Concerning the specific edit in dispute, I have provided a lengthy explanation for my changes ; this explanation was provided on: | |||
| *21:36 April 28 2005 | |||
| ** | |||
| '''Note: Rev of Bru never responded to this explanation'''. | |||
| '''Note: Since I posted this explanation, Rev of Bru has reverted my changes twice (through three separate edits). In this time Rev of Bru has provided '''no''' explanation on the Talk page. | |||
| When I complained about this on the talk page, Rev of Bru makes three assertions: | |||
| #that I am pushing a POV because most people have not studied the evidence . '''In fact''' I adressed this question in a comment on the Talk page on April 20 . | |||
| #that he has explained why he added the sentences in question . '''In fact''' there is no such explanation on the talk pages. | |||
| #that I never explained my edit, aside from an edit summary stating that RoB is wrong . '''In fact''' I provided a lengthy explanation for my edits on April 28 | |||
| ;Chronicle of edits to article | |||
| *18:24 April 28 2005 | |||
| **SR edits a paragraph; no change in content: | |||
| *18:35 April 28 2005 | |||
| **SR deletes one sentence; | |||
| *21:15 April 28 2005 | |||
| **RoB reverts edits by SR: | |||
| *21:29 April 28 2005 | |||
| **SR makes changes again, "see talk" in edit summary: | |||
| *18:00 29 April 2005 | |||
| **RoB reverts second half of SR's edit | |||
| *13:55 April 30 2005 | |||
| **RoB reverts first half of SR's edit | |||
| *18:27 April 30 2005 | |||
| **SR again makes changes, again writes "see talk" in edit summary | |||
| *18:38 April 30 2005 | |||
| **RoB again reverts, writes "see talk" in edit summary ''but does not provide any explanation in talk page'' | |||
| *18:42 April 30 2005 | |||
| **SR reverts | |||
| *20:02 April 30 2005 | |||
| **JimWae attempts a compromise | |||
| *21:59 April 30 2005 | |||
| **SR reverts ; SR provides an explanation for reversion on talk page | |||
| *23:54 April 30 2005 | |||
| **JimWae attempts another compromise, taking into account SR's comment ; SR accepts JimWae's compromise | |||
| *19:24 May 1 2005 | |||
| **RoB changes JimWae's compromise | |||
| *19:39 May 1 2005 | |||
| **SR reverts to JimWae's compromise | |||
| ====Outside Point of View==== | |||
| ] is obviously just an older incarnation of ] which she has now starting using again, so re-banning based on the ArbCom decision is probably more appropriate than mediation. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 06:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| I've been having this issue on the page for a while, but its getting ridiculous. The issue started during the Australian Election last year, when Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson made a couple of comments on the Australian Greens, in the form of humour but in line with how Anderson normally speaks. I have added these quotes a number of times to the page, and they are valid. However, ], who works for my local MP, and a member of the Australian Labour Party, has repeatedly removed these quotes calling them jokes. I have already discussed it with him on the ], however, Doctor Carr has acted highly pompous on this issue, and keeps removing the quotes calling them "frivilous" and alike. He has also then proceeded to take a shot at me for being of the youth division of the Liberal Party, "Anderson's joke lines, given out of context, are unencyclopaedic, no matter how amusing Young Liberals find them", and has tried to discount my ability to edit on the Misplaced Pages. These quotes are in context, but it is impossible to let others view them when Doctor Carr keeps judging what are and what are not quotes. I am requesting another credible user mediate and set out what and what can be quoted and whether or not Doctor Carr has been acting pompously on this issue. ] 18:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Mediation is no longer required as Doctor Carr has not made any further dedits to the quotes section, de facto acknowledgement of their legimacy. ] 21:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===] and ]=== | |||
| Dispute on April 25 at ] involving protection, unprotection and editing under protection. ] 12:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :You yourself rejected mediation when I suggested it a week ago... you insisted on starting an RfC instead. But then you boycotted the RfC process you yourself started, after putting me through the time and effort of doing two very extensive RfC writeups which you would not or could not respond to, and now claim to want mediation after all. In other words, you wasted my time and then just walked away. I have no doubt you would just do the exact same thing here, again. You're playing games and we're going in circles. | |||
| :This mediation request is in bad faith. It's merely a ploy to sabotage an RfC process which turned out heavily to your disadvantage. I'm sure you also simply wanted to be able to pretend in the future that it was me who rejected mediation when in fact it was you. -- ] 07:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::"But then you boycotted the RfC process you yourself started," | |||
| Wrong. Philwelch started the RFC process, not me. ] 20:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :You filed an RfC against me which I replied to. I filed an RfC against you which you did not reply to. You take refuge in invented techicalities and even reverted other people's contributions to RfC pages as a way to avoid answering what they wrote. I don't have time to play games with you. This experience has left me convinced you lack the integrity or competence to be an admin. As usual, you will insist on having the last word, so take your parting shot and then we'll move on. -- ] 21:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| "and even reverted other people's contributions to RfC pages as a way to avoid answering what they wrote. " | |||
| That's a misrepresentation. A third party inappropriately added comments to the response which belonged on the discussion page.] 22:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| "I filed an RFC which you did not reply to" | |||
| I replied to Philwelch's RFC and then wrote one of my own in regards to your behaviour. You then rewrote Phil's RFC after it had already been certified and after I had already written a detailed response. I thought rewriting an RFC after it had been certified and expecting me to rewrite my response was inappropriate and a violation of procedure.] 01:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Given Curps' rejection of mediation and the fact that this dispute is not active I am withdrawing my request for mediation. ] 18:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===] and ]=== | |||
| Ongoing dispute involving editing of ] and other articles. ] 04:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ]'s summary of the conflict: | |||
| ] is a creationist editor of many articles who maintains editorial control over articles by making accusations that his opponents haven't researched and are biased in providing edits. This is particularly apparent in ] where Ungtss has refused multiple attempts on the talkpage to work with him to resolve conflict. Currently I have been trying to work with him to gain an understanding of where to go with the piece on theistic realism, but his insistence that I don't know what I'm talking about is getting tiresome. ] 04:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ]'s summarry of the conflict: | |||
| Schroeder is a materialist editor who maintains editorial control over articles by engaging all editors who disagree with him in endless debates in an effort to tire them out. this has recently been observed by other editors and , in his recent effort to delete the page entirely, which he summarized as follows:. Additionally, he was recently blocked for 24 hours for a violation of the 3rr on this page. he repeatedly deletes portions of cited quotes from authors ''writing about the topic of the article'', and will edit war when necessary. the 3rr violation was over . i have no objection to mediation. ] 02:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| I hope I am at the right place with this comment/request. | |||
| ] is banned in the German and French Wikipedias, he has been blocked several times in the Italian and nds:-Wikipedias. The reason for action against him was usually that he produced dozens of badly written stubs per day, with information which he was not prepared to prove and which often enough turned out to be simply wrong after some follow-up. I was among those who cleaned up the mess he left in the German Misplaced Pages. It seems that after he was temporarily blocked in , he now starts his activities in the English language Misplaced Pages. His contributions to follow up are , the quality seems to have improved in comparison to what he contributed in de:, however, I have good reasons to doubt the correctness. I don't know how you guys in en: handle this kind of problems, I just want to alert the one or other among you about this potential problem case. --]. | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| I would like to request mediation for an ongoing revert war over the subject of whether dates on this article should use the conventional ]/] format or the ]/] alternative. This revert war has been waging for several days with several users, especially ] violating 3RR. At present the dispute centers over a proposed change by ] to alter the BC/AD dating system to BCE/CE. JimWae, slrubenstein, and some of the other editors argue that BC/AD is non NPOV since the dating system is based on the life of Christ, although ] says that it is perfectly acceptable. JimWae's proposed change currently lacks consensus among editors on the article's talk page and a vote started after an RfC yesterday shows a majority of editors are '''against''' the change. Those opposed to JimWae's change currently lead the ] by 12 to 9 and have consistently led since it was started. A small group of editors in favor of the change including the two aforementioned persons has nevertheless insisted upon implementing it in the article, leading to an endless revert war with editors who are trying to keep the article as it was with the BC/AD date system. Several requests of them to abstain from doing so until a consensus is reached in the discussion page have been ignored. ] has engaged in particularly abusive posting habits including several personal attacks on editors who have voted against the change for simply voting among other things. Any help at mediating this dispute would be greatly appreciated. ] 02:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| I would like to request mediation between myself and ], who also goes by the IP ] in regards to the article ]. ] has taken it upon himself to continuously delete a link questioning the Iglesia ni Cristo's teachings while ], a sysop has said that it could stand. He has no respect or deference for the rules of the Misplaced Pages and has made personal attacks on me and LBMixPro on the discussion page. I would be grateful for anyone's help mediating the dispute before this conflict escalates. Sincerely, --] 04:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I for one believe that Onlytofind's edits unfairly put the INC in a bad light, and that gcessor has taken great efforts to put this article to near-NPOV, as opposed to Onlytofind's. You can check the article history to verify this. Just wanted you to know that there's always two sides to a story. Yes, a mediation is clearly needed here. ] 03:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *] insists on including a link to www.thebereans.net, a "con" site that "exposes" the INC. The problem is that the Bereans' site is already linked to in the "forum" list and contains a hyperlink on that page. IMO it is redundant to have both links to the same general site. Furthermore, there is only one actual "pro" site (more are not allowed per Church Administration instructions), whereas ] insists on having four "con" sites. I feel this is completely out of step with most Misplaced Pages sites describing religions - I have yet to find a Misplaced Pages site where the number of "con" sites is even equal with the number of "pro" sites, much less four "con" sites to only one actual "pro" site. Lastly, ] claims that I have made personal attacks on him - but when I requested that he show me where I have done so, he will not provide any such proof (which is because I have made NO such personal attacks - I challenge anyone to show me where I have done so!). Please do mediate and show us where NPOV is violated, particularly in comparison to other non-disupted Misplaced Pages sites describing religions.]--] 14:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *In summary, I would like to see three resolutions: | |||
| **(1) Whether the site as it presently stands is NPOV, or biased for or against the INC ''as compared to other undisputed Misplaced Pages sites on religions''. | |||
| **(2) Whether it is right for the "con" section to have three or four times as many links as the number of links (1) in the "pro" site - again, ''as compared to other undisputed Misplaced Pages sites on religions''. | |||
| **(3) Whether I have ever used insulting language against anyone, including ]. ]--] 14:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === ] ==== | |||
| I would like to request mediation between myself and ], in regards to the article ]. ] has taken it upon himself to continuously delete a link to photos of Gaza strip. The photos are part of a work I amdoing describing the situation in Gaza prior to israel Pull-out plan. The photo (www.pbase.com/yalop/gaza) show the life of Palestinians in Gaza and of Israeli settlers there. Jayjg first removed the link claiming that it is "right wing Israeli propeganda" (side note I would invite anyone to other photos I take on www.pbase.com/yalop/wall_in_yard to determine if I am a "right wing peopeganda person") anyhow since Jayjg decided the links to the photos are propeganda he takes then down claiming that he is "removing link spam". | |||
| Jayjg has an agenda that he exposed when he first removed the links. Such agenda disqulfied him from editing such a politicaly sensitive issue. He also engae in a personal vandeta against me and removed links from other articles . | |||
| Please help with finding a mediator who can help imlement the external link policy. | |||
| Is anyone reasing this ? Please help resolve this dispute . Thanks. | |||
| The same editor has removed other photos from other articles | |||
| He wrote his justification for the removal as "remove anti-pullout spamlinks" | |||
| Please see ] | |||
| Can anyone help in the mediation of this or is one person can just start a personal edit war against me because he | |||
| mis interpret my photos as being against his political view ? | |||
| (How can photos of a place, photos that show both Israelis and Palestinians who live in the area) be a propeganda is beyond my ability to understand but it seems he has made his mind and started a vandeta to remove all external links I have added. | |||
| Is this how Misplaced Pages works ? | |||
| Please note that the issue is the CONTENT of the photos (not anything else like should they be loaded directly or linked to external site) This editor objects these photos: | |||
| http://www.pbase.com/yalop/gaza | |||
| http://www.pbase.com/yalop/mawassi | |||
| http://www.pbase.com/yalop/work | |||
| http://www.pbase.com/yalop/gaza_surfers | |||
| http://www.pbase.com/yalop/gaza&page=2 | |||
| Clearly these are photos trying to provide insight on the situation and not propeganda by either side | |||
| Both sides could be unhappy about some of the photos and happy about others. | |||
| :Actually three different editors have been removing the links, based on the fact that the links are not encyclopedic, and are an attempt to spam Misplaced Pages with links to his website (yes, I know he'll claim it's not his website, since he is not the ISP, but that's sophistry). He knows this, but prefers to present the issue as something else. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 17:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Jayjg has removed this without providing an Edit Summary: | |||
| * | |||
| I would like to mediate this issue : Are photos showing the living condition of people in Gaza strip belong or do not belong in a page that talks about the poeple, the living condition and the poverty in Gaza strip ? | |||
| The fact that Jayjg his misunderstood the photos to be what he describe as "right wing propeganda" just show that he does not understand what is in the photos. The fact that two others jumped to his defense (maybe because I am not a register user or for other non jermain reason) proovs nothing. All that is needed is to look at the photos and answer: | |||
| Are those important to people who search for the value "Gaza strip" ? | |||
| Answer: Clearly the photos provide insight beyond the text | |||
| Are the link vioalte the external link policy ? | |||
| Answer: I don't see how. | |||
| Please help mediate this. Jayjg and.or John Parris are not qualified tio make these decision alone. | |||
| === ] and the ] pages === | |||
| I respectfully request mediation on these two pages, with a second from ]. I also believe that ] may support this. ] <strike>and ]</strike> may eventually support mediation, but remain skeptical. ] supports mediation. | |||
| I believe the following items need mediation: | |||
| *POV issues surrounding Ms. Schiavo's condition (PVS, MVS, etc.) | |||
| *POV issues surrounding the legal status Ms. Schiavo's family (legal guardianship of Terri; Michael's relationships; etc.) | |||
| *POV issues regarding terminology discussing the judge's ruling(s) | |||
| *Behavior on the Talk Page | |||
| The good news is that there are a large number of deeply concerned and motivated people contributing to the pages. Unfortunately, the Talk page has become rancorous and bloggish enough that the article(s) may need arbitration. However, a less vocal majority would like to see sustantial outside input before we ask for that step. | |||
| The issues surrounding Terri Schiavo, her family and her eventual death are already having a major impact on US politics and culture. This can be seen in the Filibuster debate on the Senate floor. Please assist us in presenting the facts in the best means possible for Misplaced Pages.--] 18:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==] and ]== | |||
| User Sam Spade appears to be following me from page to page in a systematic way and making edits that challenge or revert my edits. He does not appear to be engaging in constructive collective editing on the discussion pages. He appears to believe that his right-wing POV is actually NPOV. He appears to have a history of getting into disputes with other editors. I am requesting a mediator to find a solution to this problem. There are several pages involved: ], ], and ].--] 22:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ------------------------------------------------------ | |||
| <!-- Please add new requests immediately above this line. --> | |||
| ==Archived and ongoing cases== | |||
| * ] and ] * | |||
| ** No one agreed to mediate. Andre said it was ok to close the case. | |||
| *User:Jewbacca vs. User:Auto movil | |||
| **] | |||
| *], ], ], ] | |||
| **] | |||
| * ] and ] | |||
| **] | |||
| * ] | |||
| **] | |||
| * ] and ] | |||
| **] | |||
| * ] | |||
| **] | |||
| * ] vs ] | |||
| **] | |||
| * ] and ] regarding image deletion. | |||
| ** ] | |||
| * ]: Various users and Jayjg & Josh Cherry & Jfdwolff | |||
| ** ] | |||
| * Safavids: deadlocked discussion and revert war | |||
| ** ] | |||
| * User:Palestine-info vs. User:Jayjg | |||
| ** ]. Current progress unknown. | |||
| * User:Emax vs. User:Chris 73 | |||
| ** ]. May be resolved by ]. | |||
| * ] | |||
| ** ]. | |||
| * Interwiki, Categories and Reversion | |||
| ** ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ** ]. At RFC. | |||
| *]: RSpeer & Fahrenheit451 | |||
| **]. Went to RFC instead. | |||
| * ] | |||
| **]. Went to RFC instead. | |||
| *] | |||
| **]. Went to RFC instead. | |||
| ==Archives== | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| * | |||
Latest revision as of 19:35, 12 November 2018
Redirect to: