| Revision as of 02:10, 30 May 2008 editAndonic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users36,449 edits →RFA.: Replied.← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:21, 30 May 2008 edit undoDomer48 (talk | contribs)16,098 edits →Great Hunger: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Your statement ] is impressive: you deserve this barnstar for your great skills in writing that nomination. :) ] 01:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Your statement ] is impressive: you deserve this barnstar for your great skills in writing that nomination. :) ] 01:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| == Great Hunger == | |||
| In light of this discussion, , and based on the responses and , further discussion is pointless. Having attempted to address this issue also I have no reason to believe the discussion will move on. Now as has been pointed out , this article is under an Arbcom Ruling , with conditions outlined under Principles and under Remedies. I’m now requesting that Mentor’s intervene and address this issue. “All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page.” As the article history shows, no discussion took place prior to the changes being implemented. No issues in relation to the Lead Section were raised prior to the discussion on the proposal to change the Article Name. The Article Lead Section only became an issue when one of the editors posts of a “Timeline” were removed under our guidelines of ]. Since then I have placed a detailed outline of why the edits should be removed, including ], which is pacifically mentioned in the Principles section which is clearly indicated and outlined above. Since this is the first time that Mentor’s have had to intervene, should I direct this to them or to ]? The solution I would favour is for the Article Lead to be returned to last Stable Version, and issues raised can then be discussed as to content being added. The proposal currently being made on the talk page is aimed a addressing a problem created by the recent contentious additions, and not building upon a non-contentious and stable version. For that reason, I consider the proposal premature. To illustrate the dificulty just one example: | |||
| *'''Article says:'''''The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up.'' | |||
| *'''Actual Source says:''' "The Great Famine begins. Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States." | |||
| *'''Editors response:''' “I have the book to which notes 3 to 8 refer in my hand at the moment: ''Ireland: History of a Nation'' (2002) by David Ross. Checking it I see that the appropriate text of the article is supported by reference to this book…” ] (]) 18:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks, --] (]) 18:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:21, 30 May 2008
width="270px" align="left" valign="top" style="border:solid #User:Daniel/Colour I 1px; font-size:95%; padding: 3pt;"|
|
Um?OK, I was in the midst of responding when you archived. With all do respect, I'm not critiquing, I actually agree with what you're saying. I was just trying to draw an analogy. RC-0722 /1 01:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Stabbing party?*gets his knives sharpened...* —Dark 09:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
RFA.Yeah, I forwarded the e-mail to WJB. · AndonicO 01:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
Great HungerIn light of this discussion, here, and based on the responses here and here, further discussion is pointless. Having attempted to address this issue here also I have no reason to believe the discussion will move on. Now as has been pointed out here, this article is under an Arbcom Ruling here, with conditions outlined here under Principles and here under Remedies. I’m now requesting that Mentor’s intervene and address this issue. “All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page.” As the article history shows, no discussion took place prior to the changes being implemented. No issues in relation to the Lead Section were raised prior to the discussion on the proposal to change the Article Name. The Article Lead Section only became an issue when one of the editors posts of a “Timeline” were removed under our guidelines of WP:LEAD. Since then I have placed a detailed outline of why the edits should be removed, including WP:OR, which is pacifically mentioned in the Principles section which is clearly indicated and outlined above. Since this is the first time that Mentor’s have had to intervene, should I direct this to them or to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement? The solution I would favour is for the Article Lead to be returned to last Stable Version, and issues raised can then be discussed as to content being added. The proposal currently being made on the talk page is aimed a addressing a problem created by the recent contentious additions, and not building upon a non-contentious and stable version. For that reason, I consider the proposal premature. To illustrate the dificulty just one example:
Thanks, --Domer48 (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC) |
