Note: Messages left on this page will be replied to on this page.

Talk archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

Hi Sunray,

Sorry for the long absence from the mediation. I have only been here sporadically as I am somewhat swamped at work and have had little time or motivation to engage in the frustrating discussion with Jack and Drork.

I don't know if it is worth it to keep the mediation up, as it is getting nowhere. Part of this frustration has to do with the process itself: every time I formulate a clear question or challenge, it is met only by either a vague reply, a diversion or an even more vague question to me. Jack has been very adept at derailing the whole process towards minutiae and dictionary terms while ignoring the two basic tenets of a) which term is more widely used and b) what words/terms are loaded in the spirit of WP:WTA. I have challenged him on both points, several times, and he has derailed the discussion every time.

I don't think it will ever be possible to keep the discussion on-track. If you share this opinion, then just close the mediation. I am currently working on an article on Palestinian prisoners in which the reciprocity issue will come to bear sooner or later, which may settle the terminology long-term.

Cheers and thank you for your efforts, pedrito - talk - 09.09.2008 09:00

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

I have nominated Barack Obama for Featured Article Review. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to show (without stealing the content of Mars forth coming opening statements) that it was not a personal attack but a documented issue (several articles in the print media have appeared about WMC's abuse of wikipedia and I was leaving it to Mar to give the citations)... As far as I know I have not yet made a statement in the disputed areas that can not been shown to be objectivaly true using any of the methods commonly accepted in the academic community as being legitmate sourcing and/or intererpretation of an authors intent... In ever case I have offered the source of every claim when challanged where is WMC has never once offered a legitimate counter arguement beyond pointing to some policy or an other that does not apply... In the future please wait for all the facts to be presented (if no 3rd party verification is either offered or said to be forth coming then it is not fact)... I am posting this on your talk page instead of the mediation page because no need to bring it up there. --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about WMC have no relevance to this mediation for two reasons: 1) We are dealing with the article on State of Fear, not one about WMC. 2) The mediation I signed on for, as you have stated, has to do with evidence and original research. That is what we are mediating. Please remind Mars of this. According to WP policy we cannot permit personal attacks. We will, on the other hand, be looking at legitimate sourcing. It is important to focus on content, not contributors. Sunray (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point I do not feel WMC can be trusted to honor legitmate sourcing when he has consistently shown bias and frankly no evidence of ever reading the book --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but that is what mediation is all about. My role is to stand in the middle and to help you to find common interests and a solution to the concerns raised. BTW, are you suggesting that you do not have a bias in this? Sunray (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting I am bias free but I have not (as far I know) allowed them to get in the way of factual corrections... take my edit to the ExxonMobil article I can not stand the company but I corrected a false claim against them --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but I did not understand your question regarding "What does light does...", can you re-phrase it for me? and also, I understand why you delete part of my opinion, but sincerely, the confusion in SoF is more related to a communication problem, where passion won over arguments. With all editors in SoF being civilized and answering clearly the questions asked, I believe the mediation would have been unnecessary, but I found very annoying to participate in hostile environments. Just peek WMC user page to see his reply to a question I asked today for another unrelated mini edit war. I rather spend my time in less controversial and more useful articles for Wiki readers, than waste my time over wording or defending anyones POV. However, I will contribute a bit to the mediation, but I think WMC and AMF are the key players in the dispute, and it is them who should lead.--Mariordo (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a typo. I meant to say: "What light does a review... shed." Now it's fixed. As to a communication problem: I think you may be right about that. So what we do in mediation is to practice a different (hopefully better) way of communicating. We are not out to fix anyone, only to learn how to collaborate better. We cannot get rid of someone we don't like and WP doesn't appreciate fighting. Therefore we can only either: a) avoid them, or, b) learn to get along with them. Mediation gives us a chance to do the latter. You could help out in the mediation if you understand this. sunray (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WMC's conduct should be considered bad faith because:

• He has asked for and has been presented with numerous RS's yet he claims that there is no evidence to support the claims made.

• Due to some of the "corrections" he has made it is obvious he has not read the book (i.e. certain facts that no one would claim to be SYNTH where challenged by him). For example he insists that the appendix does not directly link the Eugentics to the Holocaust when in fact under any interrpurtation MC does make a direct linkage:

"Since the 1920's, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans where admittance progressive. The set up ordinary-looking houses where 'mental defectives' where brought and interviewed one at a time, before being lead to the back of the house, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium on the property.

Eventually, this program expanded into a vast network of concretion camps located near railroad lines, enabling transport and killing of ten million undesirables" (p. 634 {paper back}).

Maybe I am confused about what OR is and what is not but the authors intent is beyond a doubt here (note this in the non-fiction section).

• He has a very solid reputation in the GW skeptics community as being apposed to any contrary view of GW. That is why both me and M presented those links (the one to the Guardian I provided is actually an entire column about his [mentioned by name along with KDP] abuses in many GW related articles).

• Provably false claims have been put forward in other articles he has edited for example the author of the Guardian souorces claims that a "prominent" (sources word not mine) members of the NASA group working on climate was protrayed as beliving in Martians when the person in question had never made any such statement and/or anyone else about them.

--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some observations about what you have said, above:

1. You make a general comment that WMC has been acting in bad faith. This would be difficult to prove, because we don't know his motives. I would avoid making such general statements about another editor as it is tends to be inflammatory—leading to more conflict.
2. You say that he has asked for and been presented with numerous RS's, yet he claims there is no evidence. This is something we can look at. Please present diffs to support this and add it to the discussion on the case talk page.
3. The eugenics example is fine, but you need to show us the diff as to what WMC said that supports your claim.
4. With respect to OR, I hope that we can clarify exactly what is is for all participants.
5. As to WMC's reputation or background, it has no relevance to this mediation. Only his actions, and that of other participants, have any relevance. You need to be clear on this. Anyone can edit, unless they violate WP policies.
6. We will need to see diffs for anything you want to deal with in this mediation. By diff, I mean the actions of a WP editor while editing Wikipedia.

Would you please indicate whether you are clear on these six points? sunray (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer 5 in the mediation talk page and handle the Eugentics one here:

Here are the diffs (reverse chrono order):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_of_Fear&diff=236706077&oldid=236694736

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_of_Fear&diff=236311246&oldid=236310824

--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] isn't a PA. If you don't like the way I've phrased it, please re-introduce it in refactored form. AMF's misunderstanding of policy is central to the problems here William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. In many forums, what you said would be perfectly acceptable. However, you did focus on the individual as well as the content. My attempt is to get down to issues rather than personalities. I will refactor it. Sunray (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you leave in the reverting-banned but cut the 3RR? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR violation report seems to me to be of no bearing on the issues being mediated. The reverting of content added by a banned user may relate to the issues, depending on how it is argued. However, I admit that it is tenuous and have questioned whether we need any further comment on it. Your third point is central to issues under mediation. Sunray (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a recent edit on article Bihar. The quote says "The age in which true history appeared in India was one of great intellectual and spiritual ferment. Mystics and sophists of all kinds roamed through the Ganga Valley, all advocating some form of mental discipline and asceticism as a means to salvation; but the age of the Buddha, when many of the best minds were abandoning their homes and professions for a life of asceticism, was also a time of advance in commerce and politics. It produced not only philosophers and ascetics, but also merchant princes and men of action." This Ganga valley referred is nothing but Magadha (ancient Bihar). I think a separate article on Ganga Valley need to be started, where it's geography can be mentioned. I am reverting back your edit. If you have any further issue kindly discuss with me. Manoj nav (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This quote is very general and not very helpful, IMO. The author refers to an indistinct time and the "Ganges Valley," which could mean many things, but is almost certainly not synonymous with Bihar, or Magadha (being larger than either). I would suggest that you find better sources than this. Moreover, the quote is incorrectly formatted currently. Sunray (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you to go through the quote and the source "Bashan A.L., The Wonder that was India, Picador, 2004, pp. 46" before making a conclusion - "The author refers to an indistinct time and the "Ganges Valley," which could mean many things, but is almost certainly not synonymous with Bihar, or Magadha (being larger than either)." Age of Buddha is a distinct time period when the Ganga valley comprised of Magadha, Vaishali, Anga, Koshala, Vrijji, Malla, Kosala, Panchala, Shurasena etc. Magadha, Vaishali, Anga and Vrijji are geographically Modern Bihar. The prominent figures Buddha, Mahavira, Ajathsatru, Bimbirara .. were active in Magadha and Vaishali in the time period mentioned. Buddhist stories of Jakarta describes how Buddha was different from other sages of the age who lived the life of asceticism on the bank of river Falgu in Gaya. The quote talks about India and Bihar is in India. Manoj nav (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I changed the lead in this article because the previous one was very confusing. I used substantially the same material from the previous lead, but rearranged it to make the concept easier to understand. You undid that. Can we have a chat about that please? I'm not convinced that my lead had "too many errors". Petemyers (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You referred to a "pluraltiy voting system." There is, in reality, no such thing. Our article on "Plurality voting system talks about "First-past-the-post" or "winner take all" voting systems. If you google the term, you will find that WP and its mirrors are about the only significant sites that talk about a "plurality voting system." The same goes for the sources. On the other hand, try googling "First-past-the-post." You will find lots of entries. There is a good reason for this. First-past-the-post was invented by the Brits and it spread to all the colonies, including the U.S. The term "plurality voting" doesn't even mean the same thing in British and American English, as you and I have both noted!

I placed a proposal on the article talk page before you made your changes. Since your edits, I've tidied up the language and the citations and left your example. I would invite you to continue improving the wording in the article. We can carry on discussion of further improvements on the talk page. Sunray (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunray. "Plurality voting system" was pulling language from the original article as it stood. The way you're describing this topic, it is indistinguishable from the first past the post system article. Petemyers (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply used the definition in the citations. The article about "Plurality" simply needs to explain the concept about what a plurality is in voting. However, I do note that the other articles do need fixing. Sunray (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sunray - I shall enable my email when I get home in 5-6 hrs. Granitethighs (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]