Donesuccessful mediation Factual accuracy dispute resolved, tiptoeing carefully in the Scientology minefield, and tag removed.
Donesuccessful mediation Mediated to address the Weasel Word concerns and also preserved the authors original intention. Reworded article. Weasel tag removed Mental property
Doing... find the "view page source" button, or use "links-to-here" to find the "users looking for help", AFC table of statistics and vandalism meter. Excellent anti-vandal features, here: User:Happysailor
Doing... Sort out some redirects for "Deeds not words" (Acta non-verba) perhaps a few notable quotations and links to WikiQuote on this too.
It's earliest form was by John Stuart Mill: “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” (1867).
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Note: the disambiguation link was intentional as it is referring to other Doolittle reports. I guess in this situation it often becomes a category; but a Disambig. Page is more suitable in this case. Mediation4u(chat)nb:editing is fun09:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, Mediation. Can you explain what happened at this submission? I think it was just copied, right? I just don't see why you didn't move it, which is quicker and cleaner. :P In general, we move the submission once we decide to create it so the history stays. NoleloverTalk·Contribs01:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the past I've had the move button available, and get the chance to give it a new name before creation - which would have worked in this case. It all works usually in a "wizard-like" way and moves across the timestamped AfC template to the talk page, preserves history, etc.
However for some reason the move button was not click-able for me this time. Am I missing some permissions? Or did I miss a step this time which enables the "move" link for me usually?
So instead, I followed the instructions >>here<<. Where I thought the move was done by copy-paste. and I moved the TS across manually, as the preload talk was also not available.
Hmm...that's odd. Well, do you use a script? There's a great one I've copied below - just paste it into your .js file - that makes it incredibly easy to review submission. Right under the normal 'Move' button will be a 'Review' button. Click that, and it will give you four choices: accept, decline, comment, or mark as in use. All but the in use button have separate submenus for things like explaining your decline reasoning, putting templates on the talk page (if you accept), and stuff like that. Whenever you decline it automatically notifies the submittor, and when you accept it notifies them, creates a talk page, and updates that "Recently created AfC's" page. Pretty useful. I'll go ahead and try to move the Doolittle page. Dunno if it will makes a difference, but it really can't hurt. Thanks for the answer :) NoleloverTalk·Contribs13:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meditation4u, there were a couple of issues with your review of this DYK nomination, most notably your edit summary, which seemed to contradict the review proper. Can you please address these, and give an icon that matches both new text and edit summary? Many thanks. (Under the circumstances, I didn't feel I could promote the hook into a prep area at the time, but would be happy to do so once the article is approved definitively.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think my edit summary was optimistic and written before I got cold feet. The article may or may not be good enough for the main page. It is the weakest I have reviewed so far, so I think it is best taken up with the experts at WT:DYK for a third opinion. A worthy cause, but may need a bit more polish for the main page. Mediation4u(chat)nb:editing is fun14:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mediation4u, I'd like to thank you for commenting to my defence. I'm at a loss, as it seems clear that the number of Wikipedians focused on removing content that doesn't meet their standards is greater than the number of Wikipedians focused on improving content. These same editors also appear to be those who have administrative powers, and have tens of thousands of edits under their belts, in my opinion, mostly because it is much easier to simply remove disagreeable content, than it is to create and/or improve content... "To destroy is easier to create". --Thoric (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. The more contributors we can keep, the better. It will mean less work for me, for a start! Everywhere I look there are items which have been removed which used to be very useful. Adding them back might be a fools errand; just for someone to delete them again. In my view a constructive contributor is worth 10 deletionists. A constructive purist would genuinely improve the content instead of just trashing it. Mediation4u(chat)nb:editing is fun23:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to do next. The consensus was supposed to be to merge Realms of Despair and SMAUG together into a single article. Instead, both articles were merged into DikuMUD, and then User:czar proceeded to remove everything down to a pretty much a single word mention of SMAUG. This is not right. --Thoric (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing what you wanted and what the closer's summary stated. Content can only be merged if it's reliably sourced and relevant to the article. We don't merge in reams of primary sources. I gave a heads up in the AfD itself that there was no actual content that linked Realms to DikuMUD. As for "what to do next", unless you have additional reliable sources to add on the talk page, you have already been advised of WP's conflict of interest guidelines. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar20:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thoric: I have seen many good, even saintly, Wikipedians lost to the project. My proposal at the village pump is to try to staunch, or at least reduce, this haemorrhage of the good people leaving.
I won't ask elsewhere for anyone to rally around the flag. If no one votes for my proposal then I must assume everyone in the discussion is content with carrying out future exchanges in the same robust manner, due to expediency. So I may amend the proposal and make a WP:RFC that a call for the face-to-face test and a reduction in slap down debate is announced every December on deletionists forums, backlog drives and perhaps even a link posted on a few user pages. This cease fire hiatus will be during an advent season of goodwill. Perhaps that calm time is a good reason for abrasive deletionists to take a fortnight off and have a well deserved rest. Then kindness can prevail for that period, ready for hostilities to resume the following January. Any thoughts? Apart from restoring the two articles, what would you like to see improve? What would prevent you leaving?
I wasn't expecting both articles to remain, but I wasn't expecting all the content to be removed after a merge decision -- but then again, this is what the deletionists do. First they put notices that the article needs work, and doesn't cite adequate sources. Then they claim the sources aren't acceptable, or reputable enough, or that the topic in question was merely a passing mention, and wasn't in depth enough, and next thing you know, the article is reduced to a stub, and then comes the AfD. If you're lucky enough to get a merge vote, rather than a delete, the deletionist doesn't mind, because once the merge is complete, they can easily cut out the merged content, because it is no longer under the protection of its own article, and the process of deletion... they can just slice and dice away the merged content until it is pretty much non-existent, and that is just what they did. --Thoric (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I may add another guideline to the education bullet points: Be bold : in editing, not in attacking
This courtesy message is being sent to all those who previously took part in a specific debate on notability and deletion policy at the village pump. There is now an invitation on that thread for feedback on a constructive (revised) proposal arising from that debate, before it moves to an official RFC. Your valued feedback would be appreciated. Click >> the revised proposal, at the village pump. <<( Thoric— Czar)Mediation4u(chat)nb:editing is fun12:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trustee elections
I voted, did you? Some esteemed Wikipedians, let's copy their example and success, not dwell on disaster. Forget all about the haters. Surround ourselves with these positive people.
