Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:16, 18 April 2014

	Dispute Resolution (inactive)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionTemplate:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionDispute Resolution

• WT:RFC

NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment. Please follow Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment.

Are you having trouble getting your RfC listed? Please make sure the bot hasn't been turned off. If the bot hasn't run in the last few hours, then please alert the bot's owner. If the bot is apparently running, then the problem is almost certainly with the template formatting. To get help with formatting the template correctly, please leave a message, including the name of the page where you want to start the RfC, at the bottom of this page.

Template:Misplaced Pages ad exists

Archives

For why RfC was created, see: Dispute resolution/Archive 1#Requests for comment Feb 2004 Feb 2004–May 2005 May 2005–Sep 2005 Sep 2005–Oct 2005 Oct 2005–May 2006 May 2006–Dec 2006 Jan 2007–Jun 2007 July 2007–Dec 2007 Jan 2008-Feb 2009 Feb 2009-Feb 2010 Feb 2010-January 2012 January 2012—Current Next

This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Draft update of section WP:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_articles.2C_policies.2C_or_other_non-user_issues

If your issue is primarily about the conduct of another user, do not use this process. Instead, use Request for comment on user.

1. Edit the talk page of the article or project page that you are interested in. Create a new section at the bottom of the talk page. If the talk page already has a section started on the topic, you can edit that existing section, but a new section is generally better.
2. Insert an RfC template at the top of the talk page section. The RfC templates are listed in the adjacent table.
   • Example: {{rfc|econ}} If you are not certain in which area an issue belongs, pick the one that seems closest.
   • If the RfC is relevant to two categories, include them both. For example: {{rfc|econ|bio}}
   • Note that the "Policies and Guidelines" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply the existing policies and guidelines to a specific article. The same approach also applies to "style", "WikiProject", and all of the other non-article categories.
3. Include a brief, neutral yet complete statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template. The section header will not be copied by the bot to the separate RfC list. Sign the statement with ~~~~ (name and date) or ~~~~~ (just the date) ...

Modification of a request for comments

Hi all. I posted a request for comments on Talk:Crowned Crane. Later, another user deleted one paragraph (and modified another) of my request. I restored my version but it is still the modified one that is on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. Can somebody correct that or will it be automatically corrected? Thanks for your help. Mama meta modal (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC).

Number of simultaneous requests

Is there any limit about the number of simultaneous requests a user can file? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the user. In my case, the maximum is zero. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The oldest time life magazine

Bold textHello, I love using Misplaced Pages for lots of things..However.I was a little Disappointed to read that you claim that the oldest "Time life magazine was issued in May of 1923, If not mistaken.. It was published then by Turner or copyrighted?. I hold The Oldest Time life magazine Thus far, Volume or number 343, issued from New York, July 25, 1889. saying below that, "Entered at the New York post office as second-class mail matter.below that it continues to say, "Copyright, 1889, By Mitchell & Miller.. I am guessing that "The Turner company may have bought the copy rights". Thanks for letting me share.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.102.154 (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Comments are requested for the International Churches of Christ Misplaced Pages entry and talk page. Thank you. Qewr4231 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Major addition, which I think we ought to consider a bit

An editor added a large section to the very top of the page. It's a pretty reasonable section, but it's a major change to this important and venerable page, so I think it'd be a good idea to think about this a bit... whether we want this section, whether it should be place at the very top or not, and whether we want it to say what it does or perhaps change the emphasis somewhat. On that basis I've reverted the addition, without prejudice, and let's what some other people have to say. The section is titled "Brief Summary" and here's what it says:

RfCs are useful for getting uninvolved people's insights on a difficult issue. They prompt a discussion that can help forge consensuses or at the very least make it clear that one side is the one clearly supported by our editors.

In order for anyone to respect the consensus raised, the RfC must be started with care. When filing an RfC on a talk page, {{RfC}} must be used, and immediately following it must be a brief, completely unbiased summary of the issues. Be especially careful that, if you are looking for a choice to be made from among two or more possible options, you give clear "voting" options.

Also, be careful that the RfC is placed on a good talk page for it. If people keep reverting your edits to beluga whale because you are adding unsourced information about how beluga whales and chickens are not closely related, and talk page discussions fail to resolve the situation, then:

• If you think Misplaced Pages is wrong to require reliable sources, place your RfC at the talk page for Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. Write a completely neutral summary of the question at stake (e.g., "Should we allow obvious information to be placed in articles without reliable sources to validate it?") and then write your own comment just below it (perhaps saying something like "Support because reliable sources are overrated.")

• If you think that the policy is fine, but is not applicable in your situation (perhaps you are trying to introduce information claiming that beluga whales are not closely related to chickens and you don't think that you should need a source for this particular situation), file your RfC on the talk page for Beluga whale and (as above) write a completely neutral summary of the issue ("Is a reliable source required in this situation to support the assertion that beluga whales are only distantly related to chickens?") and only then write your opinion ("No, because chickens are far tastier and everybody knows this.")

Herostratus (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

As part of the official process page, it reads more like an essay. Not that there is no place for essays, but it adds naught specifically to the page here, and, IMO, would be readily misused by folks who would say that anything which in their opinion is not absolutely correct would be grounds for rejecting the RfC out of hand. By making it a separate essay, such lawyering would,hopefully, be avoided. Collect (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but right now there's a slew of RfCs that are unclear and unhelpfully worded. An RfC must be neutrally worded and provide clear possible answers for people to respond with. And many or most RfCs that I've seen since I started getting the notices fail this... miserably. See, for instance, the utter mess at Talk:Crowned_Crane#rfc_7A5756B and the two different semi-concurrent RfCs. The RfC I linked to had a good description of the issue, but was in a terrible venue (should've been at the offending style WP pages) and did not provide a clear set of choices ("Respond with "Title Case" or "Sentence case" or another answer"). If you want to rewrite this section, that'd be great, but as Mary Poppins said, "well begun is half done". Let's help RfCs be better begun. Red Slash 22:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Red Slash. It's very frustrating when a lot of people come in and give a lot of thought to something and it's useless because it wasn't presented properly.

I think there're two kinds of RfC, one where you just want people to throw out ideas and see what sticks, and one where you're really looking for a decision. Sometimes you need the first type and then the other. If it's a binary decision, it ought to be presented along the lines if "Should we do X, yes or no?" with a Survey section and a Discussion section. If three or four choices need to be presented, ask people to describe what there second (and third etc.) preferences are. Sometimes you want to present two questions (in separate sections) -- "Should we do X, yes or no?" and "If we do do X, should we do in manner Y or manner Z, pick one", that sort of thing. Let's see some thought and logical rigor applied when we're asking people for their time.

Still, an essay along these lines, linked to from here, is probably the best way. That'd allow the essay to go into some detail. "If there are three options, decide how you are going to ask people to express that, and what weighting will be used, here are some suggestions" and so on. Does this page even tell how to make separate Survey and Extended Discussion sections? If not that ought go in too.

Red Slash if you want to move this to an essay -- I'd recommend maybe starting it in your userspace, maybe -- that'd be great, give us the link and let's see what we can do. Herostratus (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right that there are two rather distinct sorts of RfC's--those where we're just gathering information and those where it is made explicitly clear that a clear consensus will result in change X. Perhaps we could create a new process that explicitly calls for aid in making a decision? (RfD?)

In the meantime, the general instructions for how to file an RfC should be the first paragraph on the RfC main page. The situation we have now is failing miserably. Why? Probably because the general instructions about how to file an RfC are not made clear enough. I don't feel like what I wrote was too detailed (I could've easily gone into a LOT of depth) - you have to have some depth if you're going to explain to people what forum they need to choose when filing their RfC. Again, I don't care about the words I've written, but the definite idea behind them must be included here if we want to avoid the current mess that the RfC process is. If a process is being used poorly, repeatedly... then change the instructions! Red Slash 23:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Favorite betrayal criterion

Two separate uninvolved editors have suggested on Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2014_April_14#Favorite_betrayal_criterion that an RfC may be appropriate. I am amenable, but as an involved editor, perhaps I shouldn't be the one to start such an RfC. What should I do? Homunq (࿓) 22:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to get some feedback on user Binksternet (talk · contribs) for several WP:ASF edits, duplication of negative content, promoting the views of a particular critic and otherwise for taking a very one sided approach to editing the Vassula Ryden article.

Vassula Ryden : Multiple WP:ASF edits, duplicating negative content, promoting the views of a particular critic and ignoring NPOV + questionable behavior

WP:ASF Edits

Example 1:

1. Binksternet originally created a paragraph speaking about Dermine that disregarded WP:ASF back in 2012. see diff
2. Administrator LFaroene made an attempt to bring the aforementioned paragraph more inline with WP:ASF beginning 2013. see diff
3. Binksternet immediately reverted the above edit calling it the "consensus version". There was no such consensus. see diff
4. A few days ago, I re-modified it to a more encyclopedic tone citing WP:ASF in my edit. see diff
5. A couple of hours later Binksternet subtly re-inserted his original version of the of text citing other changes made in the edit. Note that he omitted making any mention of reverting his paragraph to his original WP:ASF version. see diff after line 56

Example 2:

In the same edit as mentioned above (see diff Line 32) Binksternet inserted a sentence claiming that "Ryden has never published the first ten months' worth of received messages, explaining that she burned them because there were too many". The entire sentence, be it that she burned the messages, that they were too many or that she even made such an explanation in the first place is a claim made by Dermine, who strongly opposes Ryden and has no credible publishing track record to speak of. Theologians who have a much greater track record have provided a completely different account regarding the missing messages. However Dermine's text is being presented as "a matter of fact" with "Ryden claiming that the reason behind it was etc". Also the text "Father Rene Laurentin contradicted Ryden" is also a claim made by Dermine. That too however, is being presented as a matter of fact. This seems to be another breach of WP:ASF.

Other possible WP:NPOV issues

1. Insertion of Holy See text (see diff) which already appears twice in the article in two other sections, both in the lead and the "Reception". He extended it to the "writings" section as well (see Line 38). The Holy See notification now appears 3 times in the article, in 3 different sections, the lead, the "Reception" section and now the "Writings" section. See Vassula Ryden article and search for "Holy See".
2. WP:GAMING of wikipedia rulebook in removal of Ryden receiving Peace Gold Medal verifiable not least by photograph (see diff). In his edit comment he referred to it as 'non-notable' even though Venerable Suddhananda, the issuer of the medal is the top ranking Buddhist monk of Bangladesh and the Prime Minister of Bangladesh was present (in photograph). Its true that this was uncited (newspapers from Bangladesh can be a bit difficult to acquire) but was deleting this content really necessary when Ryden receiving of this medal is verifiable by photograph and not debated even by Ryden's fiercest opponents? To view the photograph that was removed, see previous subsection version of article here.
3. In his edit comment for this edit (see diff), Binksternet made the comment "The quote is from the back cover, page 142, not from the author." This book, written by theologian and Mariologist Rene Laurentin, an author with an extensive publishing record, contains a lot of informative and supportive material regarding Ryden. Being that Rene Laurentin's written track record is far greater than that of Dermine, and that Binksternet had the book in in his possession, why did he not attribute any material from that book by adding it into the article? Why only insert text attributed to Dermine, who has a much smaller track record and is also a staunch opposer to Ryden? Isn't it the goal of wikipedia to promote multiple views from multiple sources in a balanced manner? It seems in this case, that he has made it a point to acquire Rene Laurentin's book for no other purpose than to scrutinize the references attributed to it.
4. In this edit (see diff) Binksternet added a link to a self published website dedicated to criticizing Vassula Ryden (http://www.pseudomystica.info) within the article itself. This website is hosted by François-Marie Dermine, who is also the author of the book that Binksternet was quoting in his WP:ASF violations (see previous section example 1). This edit, in my view seems to be indicative of an attempt at promoting the website by inserting it directly within the article. Further to this, the edit is also attributed to a WP:SPS (http://www.pseudomystica.info).

Questionable Statements

In a conversation titled "reception section needs work" (see discussion) at comment dated 16:16, 15 April 2014, he posted a misleading statement on how the CDF dialogue was carried about stating it was by email only, despite being well versed in its details, which included a private audience between Ryden and Ratzinger verifiable not least by photograph in an article he was aware of. I am certain of his knowledge of this article because of his extensive participation in a talk page discussion discussing Grechs article (see discussion). This discussion mentioned Grechs article multiple times and also preceded the "reception section needs work" discussion in which he made the misleading statement. In the Grechs article discussion Binksternet made the following statements:

• "No. Simply no. There is no way to game this book review to make the Ryden story a positive one." 18:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC). This comment speaks for itself. (see diff)
• "There is no hopeful note to this story". 5:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC). This comment pretty much brings it home. (see diff)

Neither of the two aforementioned statements strike me as someone who has taken an WP:NPOV approach to this article. I would recommend reading the above discussion in its entirety to acquire context of it. I have been involved in multiple other talk discussion's, RFC's, DRN's where Binksternet downplayed / made misleading statements with regard to positive developments in Ryden's church relations. For the sake of brevity I will exclude them from this post.

In closing

Considering how Binksternet (talk · contribs) inserted and consolidated material attributed to François-Marie Dermine's book in violation to WP:ASF in multiple locations, asserting Dermine's views from the book in the article as fact, did everything to consolidate said edits, and that he inserted a reference to http://www.pseudomystica.info, a website hosted by Dermine directly into the article itself, attributing said insertion to the website itself (WP:SPS), it seems that Binksternet has taken it upon himself to promote Dermine's views in the article. While this is speculative, given his approach to editing the article and his tone in the talk pages, I would not be surprised if Binksternet had a connection with Dermine which would constitute a WP:COI. I do realize however, that this cannot be proven with the information presented here alone.

Upon reviewing Binksternet's edit history one can take note how this editor has taken a very one sided approach to the article. His edit history starts mid 2012. Upon reviewing my edit history you will note that my contributions to the Vassula Ryden article have also been relatively one sided. The differences between me and Binksternet is:

• I respect and follow wikipedia guidelines when they are presented to me, particularly WP:RS and WP:ASF.
• I do not try edit text claimed by authors and present them as facts.
• I do not attempt to trim or remove content that I do not agree with even when the sources attributed to said content are often non notetable.
• I am not a high caliber edtitor like Binksternet, thus I expect much more knowledge / adherence to WP rules than what I have witnessed from his part.

A full explanation of why I have mainly edited the Vassula Ryden article (technically making me an SPA) can be viewed | here. (see TLIG section). I would appreciate some input as to the approach taken by editor Binksternet (talk · contribs) based on what I have reported above. Thanks. Arkatakor (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)