Wikipedia talk:Resolving disputes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
---|
Contents |
[edit] Archived
I manually ran the EssjayBot II code to archive off the discussions on this page that were more than 14 days old; just wanted to clarify that in case anyone was wondering if the bot had been set to archive the page automatically. (Using the bot code was quicker, since it automatically checks dates and archives.) Essjay (Talk) 03:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Go to talk?
Sure :) I think the present wording is fine. (Radiant) 16:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. ;-) Anyone else? TheronJ 16:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's very ironic that our dispute over the "resolving disputes" page was so easy to resolve :) (Radiant) 17:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's because we're so good at dispute resolution. ;-) (If anyone wants to check out or comment on our changes, Radiant! and I ended up making the following change[1] to WP:DR - largely to clarify the use of surveys when some editors believe that others are "ignoring consensus.") TheronJ 17:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's very ironic that our dispute over the "resolving disputes" page was so easy to resolve :) (Radiant) 17:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blocking a user
A user User:Dangerous-Boy has been following my edits for last two days and has been tagging every Pakistan related article that I edit with a template with Republic of India which is extremely provacative territorial claim; as present day India is different from pre-1947 India which was called Subcontinent. After a lengthy discussion at User_talk:Dbachmann#Szhaider, where I and others gave him a solid reason to stop adding Indian tags to Pakistan related and Afghanistan related articles. User:Dbachmann gave a suggestion about creating a neutral tag without Indian flag refering to entire subcontinent. I created such a tag (Template:WP SouthAsia) and replaced indian tags with this new tag. But User:Dangerous-Boy removed this too and doesn't seem to convinced by any rational explanation. He is clearly following his own political agendas comparing India related articles with Pakistan related articles and he insists adding Indian scripts to Pakistan related articles (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Use of vernacular scripts in India bio articles - 1). He has violated 3RR rule many times and I suggest he should be blocked to stop this meaningless edit war. It is wasting a lot of my time but I cannot stand such political aggression on Wikipedia. I suggest all Subcontinent history related articles should be tagged with Template:WP SouthAsia. Szhaider 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- You have been doing the same thing. Removing Indian history tags from articles of the same relevance such ancient indic civilizations. You have already been told not to do this by other users yet you contine. You have reverted countless times and do not cease. The pak tag that u put on the articles is respected and stays there. Yet, you remove the indian history tag there assessments that have long been there. At the time of this writng there is no Wikipedia:WikiProject History of South Asia only Wikipedia:WikiProject South Asia.--D-Boy 05:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I created Wikipedia:WikiProject South Asia to stop you (User:Dangerous-Boy) from tagging Pakistan related articles with Republic of India flags. I created a neutral Template:WP SouthAsia to replace your politiclly provacative and offensive tag. This new template covers the whole region, good for both Pakistan and Republic of India. Yet you are still imposing your nationalist approach towards the countries which are not part of and never were part of Republic of India; which was created, as we know it today, on August 15, 1947. Szhaider 05:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- As stated at the top of the page, "This is not the place to post notices of disputes, questions about particular articles, or requests for assistance. Please follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes." (Radiant) 09:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] About Resolving Disputes
The amount of reading through the jungle here makes it close to impossible to find how to request a mediator. In my opinion one needs a lifetime study almost. If I take distance from it all I have hope, but once I see the pages and start reading I realize I need to go to bed in time as well because I need to go to work next morning. It feels like everything has done to make it (justice and dispute resolution) as least accessible as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).
- The sidebar ({{dispute-resolution}}) should help you there. (Radiant) 08:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Resolving disputes amicably
I'd like to propose to rename the current name to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes amicably. Apparently Wikipedia:Resolving disputes amicably sounds good. Anybody else opposing to this nice name? --Sushisushi 11:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I believe the name is fine enough at the moment. Adding amicably may confuse things, its better to keep it generalized and to the point. If people reference to this page it usually should be to gather information about how to solve disputes amicably.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Dispute resolution is most needed when the parties are not amicable. Arbitration is part of the dispute resolution process and can be anything but amicable. —Centrx→talk • 05:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- True, true Centrx but do you believe that the policy requires such a rename?¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Just wanted to clarify it, as harsh as the process may become the question was whether the policy needed a rename. Pretty much keeping to "Dispute resolution" leaves it to enough interpretation.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Although if you think it'll help, you could add a sentence to this page stating it's preferable for disputes to be resolved amicably. (Radiant) 09:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Just wanted to clarify it, as harsh as the process may become the question was whether the policy needed a rename. Pretty much keeping to "Dispute resolution" leaves it to enough interpretation.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-