This page was created as part of the mediation process for the Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. The page is specifically devoted to discussion of implementing Wikipedia policies on the Sathya Sai Baba and related articles.
The Wikipedia policy Verifiablility states:
It takes time to add new material to an article. It may not be possible to immediately provide substitute material for material which is removed because it is inadequately sourced. This may leave an article in a state which is rough, awkward or otherwise lacking. The issue is raised whether editors may remove inadequately sourced material if it appears to bring detriment to the article.
The mediator notes that the Verifiability Policy also states:
It is the mediators opinion, that where consensus exists that material is inadequately sourced according to Wikipedia policy, that any editor may remove such material, even if other editors believe this will adversely affect the quality of the article, and even if it is estimated that considerable time will be required to restore the quality of the article.
Please express your agreement or disagreement with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 20:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles contain a significant amount of material for which there is no source mentioned either within the article itself or within the talk pages. Editors have a right to remove such material. However, it is good practice and courteous to discuss changes to articles in the article talk pages, and to allow adequate time for editors to respond to proposed changes.
The mediator believes that 48 hours is generally a reasonable amount of advanced notice to give to editors for proposed deletions of inadequately sourced material. It is possible that sources for a statement may be discovered after a 48 hour period. However, if an appropriate source is discovered after the 48 hour period, then the deleted material may be restored. Remember that on Wikipedia, edits are not irreversible. In the mediator's opinion, courtesy to other editors does not require more than 48 hours notice.
Please express your agreement or disagreement with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 21:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Opinion of mediator: It is a courtesy to other editors to give notice before making edits which may be contentious. If an editor has given adequate notice (for example 48 hours) of a proposed change, and that change has not been contested within the 48 hours, then the making of that edit should not be considered disruptive. An editor, however, does not forfeit the right to make future edits, including reversions, merely because that editor failed to respond within the given time frame. Immediate reversions of edits, especially when advance notice has been given for those edits, and timely objections have not been made, may reduce the level of cooperative spirit among editors. The mediator therefore proposes the following.
It is proposed that if
Then no editor (except the editor who made the change) should revert the change in whole or in part without first giving 48 hours advance notice of the intent to revert, and an explanation for the reasons for the revert.
Please state your willingness or unwillingness to abide by this proposal. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 18:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
BostonMA, I am unwilling to follow this agreement unless Andries agrees to it.
SSS108
talk-
email 23:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
To avoid further misunderstanding the following. When I have stated once that I disagree with SSS108 and explained why then I find further arguments by SSS108 unconvincing unless I state otherwise: I do not have to state again and again that I do not agree with SSS108 and provide extensive explanations within 48 hours. Often I do not have the time and energy to go into extensive discussions within 48 hours. Andries 07:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
And please understand that this agreed upon proposal states change in singular, not changes. Of course when there are many proposed changes in a short time then 48 hours is not enough. Andries 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia policy No Original Research, only material which has been published by a reputable source ought to be included in Wikipedia articles. A number of tests for determining whether a source may be considered reputable for the purposes of the policy. These include:
In many cases, editors will have no difficulty agreeing upon the answers to these questions. In other cases, differences of opinion may arise regarding whether the threshold has been reached for a source to be considered reputable. For example, editors might agree on the actual circulation of a journal yet disagree over the issue of whether the circulation is "large". Differences may also arise regarding how many of the test questions must be "passed". All of the questions? Just one?
The mediator suggests that the parties agree to follow a guideline to deal with cases where differences of opinion exist regarding whether or not a source should be considered reputable. The mediator suggests the following:
This is a conservative guideline. If a source is recognized as reputable by the general consent of the editors, then this guideline will accept the source as reputable. However, if it is disputed that the source is reputable, the guideline errs on the side of not accepting the source. The guideline breaks the decision into parts in the hopes of thwarting attempts to block consensus on grounds other than those provided by Wikipedia policy.
Please indicate whether you are willing to abide by this guideline. Please discuss other matters elsewhere. -- BostonMA 23:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia policy No Original Research, only material which has been published by a reputable source ought to be included in Wikipedia articles. A number of tests for determining whether a source may be considered reputable for the purposes of the policy. These include:
The mediator suggests the following guideline to determine whether or not a source should be considered to be reputable per the NOR policy.
Please express your willingness or unwillingness to follow this guideline. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 17:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
This page was created as part of the mediation process for the Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. The page is specifically devoted to discussion of implementing Wikipedia policies on the Sathya Sai Baba and related articles.
The Wikipedia policy Verifiablility states:
It takes time to add new material to an article. It may not be possible to immediately provide substitute material for material which is removed because it is inadequately sourced. This may leave an article in a state which is rough, awkward or otherwise lacking. The issue is raised whether editors may remove inadequately sourced material if it appears to bring detriment to the article.
The mediator notes that the Verifiability Policy also states:
It is the mediators opinion, that where consensus exists that material is inadequately sourced according to Wikipedia policy, that any editor may remove such material, even if other editors believe this will adversely affect the quality of the article, and even if it is estimated that considerable time will be required to restore the quality of the article.
Please express your agreement or disagreement with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 20:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles contain a significant amount of material for which there is no source mentioned either within the article itself or within the talk pages. Editors have a right to remove such material. However, it is good practice and courteous to discuss changes to articles in the article talk pages, and to allow adequate time for editors to respond to proposed changes.
The mediator believes that 48 hours is generally a reasonable amount of advanced notice to give to editors for proposed deletions of inadequately sourced material. It is possible that sources for a statement may be discovered after a 48 hour period. However, if an appropriate source is discovered after the 48 hour period, then the deleted material may be restored. Remember that on Wikipedia, edits are not irreversible. In the mediator's opinion, courtesy to other editors does not require more than 48 hours notice.
Please express your agreement or disagreement with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 21:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Opinion of mediator: It is a courtesy to other editors to give notice before making edits which may be contentious. If an editor has given adequate notice (for example 48 hours) of a proposed change, and that change has not been contested within the 48 hours, then the making of that edit should not be considered disruptive. An editor, however, does not forfeit the right to make future edits, including reversions, merely because that editor failed to respond within the given time frame. Immediate reversions of edits, especially when advance notice has been given for those edits, and timely objections have not been made, may reduce the level of cooperative spirit among editors. The mediator therefore proposes the following.
It is proposed that if
Then no editor (except the editor who made the change) should revert the change in whole or in part without first giving 48 hours advance notice of the intent to revert, and an explanation for the reasons for the revert.
Please state your willingness or unwillingness to abide by this proposal. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 18:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
BostonMA, I am unwilling to follow this agreement unless Andries agrees to it.
SSS108
talk-
email 23:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
To avoid further misunderstanding the following. When I have stated once that I disagree with SSS108 and explained why then I find further arguments by SSS108 unconvincing unless I state otherwise: I do not have to state again and again that I do not agree with SSS108 and provide extensive explanations within 48 hours. Often I do not have the time and energy to go into extensive discussions within 48 hours. Andries 07:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
And please understand that this agreed upon proposal states change in singular, not changes. Of course when there are many proposed changes in a short time then 48 hours is not enough. Andries 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia policy No Original Research, only material which has been published by a reputable source ought to be included in Wikipedia articles. A number of tests for determining whether a source may be considered reputable for the purposes of the policy. These include:
In many cases, editors will have no difficulty agreeing upon the answers to these questions. In other cases, differences of opinion may arise regarding whether the threshold has been reached for a source to be considered reputable. For example, editors might agree on the actual circulation of a journal yet disagree over the issue of whether the circulation is "large". Differences may also arise regarding how many of the test questions must be "passed". All of the questions? Just one?
The mediator suggests that the parties agree to follow a guideline to deal with cases where differences of opinion exist regarding whether or not a source should be considered reputable. The mediator suggests the following:
This is a conservative guideline. If a source is recognized as reputable by the general consent of the editors, then this guideline will accept the source as reputable. However, if it is disputed that the source is reputable, the guideline errs on the side of not accepting the source. The guideline breaks the decision into parts in the hopes of thwarting attempts to block consensus on grounds other than those provided by Wikipedia policy.
Please indicate whether you are willing to abide by this guideline. Please discuss other matters elsewhere. -- BostonMA 23:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia policy No Original Research, only material which has been published by a reputable source ought to be included in Wikipedia articles. A number of tests for determining whether a source may be considered reputable for the purposes of the policy. These include:
The mediator suggests the following guideline to determine whether or not a source should be considered to be reputable per the NOR policy.
Please express your willingness or unwillingness to follow this guideline. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 17:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)