This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Discussion moved to RSN. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Needs to move back to talk page or on to a merger discussion or a request for comments, no progress here and no volunteer willing to step in. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
This noticeboard is intended mostly for content disputes. This dispute appears to be solely about user conduct. RJR3333 is welcome to use
WP:Editor Review if he would like someone to review his actions. Topic ban proposals, if warranted, belong at
WP:AN. –
NULL ‹
talk› ‹ edits› 03:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
I am noticing bias on the BP article. There is only one other editor active on the page and we do not see things the same way. He sees my edits as POV pushing and continues to undo them. I see his editing as POV pushing and obviously pro-BP. He is having a hard time refraining from sharing his displeasure with me, which makes discussion a dead-end venture.
Here is the discussion: [ [1]] Here is the edit in question: [ [2]]
I took the problem to [ POV noticeboard] and received only one reply, which was in complete agreement with my stance. But this did nothing to help the situation.
There is an edit war going on as he has reverted my edit 3 times, and I have done the same (not in a 24 hour period though).
Users involved
Yes.
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=BP}} --~~~~
in a new section on each user's talk page.Resolving the dispute
Discussion and POV noticeboard
Please give suggestions for where to go from here. We may need some administrators to take a look and see which editor is POV pushing, and perhaps to ban them from editing the page, to me it looks like the other editor is working on behalf of BP to make their Wikipedia article favorable. Also, help with the edit in question would be great.
petrarchan47 T c 01:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Here are 2 discussions regarding other edits which look like POV pushing to me [ removal of BP oil spill financial aftermath] and [ removal of the fact that BP's oil spill was the largest accidental oil spill in marine history]. petrarchan47 T c 02:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I think an administrator's input could help. It looks to me that the points sought to be included are relevant and appropriate to this article. There seem to be only two editors involved and the opposition to the edit seems emotional and out of perspective. Coaster92 ( talk) 05:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Getting back on track: Bias and Undue Weight in the BP Lead Section:
Yet, in the 4 paragraph Lead, 1st paragraph last sentence: "[BP] also has major renewable energy activities, including in biofuels and wind power."
3rd paragraph of Lead: "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. < How is this related to --> ? > In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period." < ie, 4% >
The 3rd para has a single sentence : These are very rough estimates, mind you. But take a look at the page, it's blatantly obvious we have a problem here.
The intro is in clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines for [ Wikipedia:LEAD]. This is what we're here to remedy. Discuss. petrarchan47 T c 22:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
"BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases."
It makes the point that BP has been found wanting but then shows balance by going on to say what BP is doing about it. I hope this helps.
Dormskirk (
talk) 23:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
petrarchan47 T c 04:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Rangoon, please see the following from the spill article:
In September 2011, the U.S. government published its final investigative report on the accident.[38] In essence, that report states that the main cause was the defective cement job, and put most of the fault for the oil spill with BP, also faulting Deepwater Horizon operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton.[39][40] Investigations continue, with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stating on April 24 2012, "The Deepwater Horizon Task Force is continuing its investigation into the explosion and will hold accountable those who violated the law in connection with the largest environmental disaster in US history". The first arrest related to the spill was in April 2012; an engineer was charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly deleting 300 text messages showing BP knew the flow rate was three times higher than initial claims by the company, and knew that Top Kill was unlikely to succeed, but claimed otherwise.[41][42][43]
In view of the fact that BP has been been found to be largely responsible for what the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder calls the largest environmental disaster in US history, I would expect nothing less than a paragraph in the lede to summarize the Gulf spill. You seem to want to suggest that it is just "two editors in this thread [who are] primarily concerned with the environmental impact of BP's activities" as though certain editors had to really dig deep to find the dirt on BP and bias the article with it. That is absurd. Gandydancer ( talk) 15:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I am adding my comment as I was invited at my talk to join this discussion by both involved parties. I am not the major editor of this article; however, I have previously made edits about issues related to this discussion, e.g. concerning Deepwater Horizon and BP Solar. Altogether, between 25 May 2010 and 16 June 2012 I have made 35 edits to that article, of them 10 edits are minor. If I understand correctly this dispute resolution is limited to the lead of the article, so I will comment only the lead.
As a general rule, the lead should only summarize the article and all specific details should be provided in the relevant sections. Therefore, I don't think that the lead should discuss individual accidents or particular investments. However, against this understanding I added to the third paragraph the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as an example. My intention was to have this addition as compromise. However, as I said, if mentioned in the lead, it does not need its own sentence or paragraph. If there will be consensus that no cases should be mentioned in the lead, I have nothing against removing this mentioning.
As of the rest of this paragraph, I think that the fact that "In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change" is justified to be in the lead. At the same time, I don't think that the information about renewable energy investments should be there. At its current stage, it may give an impression of "green washing". Therefore I propose to remove the last sentence of the third paragraph and to modify the last sentence of the first paragraph as following: "It also has renewable energy activities with annual investments over US$1 billion in the development of renewable energy sources, such as biofuels and wind power.
Concerning the lead in general, I also think that some information mentioning BP's different roots such as Anglo-Persian Oil Company or Amoco would be useful. However, I don't have any specific proposal concerning this. Beagel ( talk) 11:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
"BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents, including the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases."
I hope this helps. Dormskirk ( talk) 21:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
It looks to me as if Rangoon11 is the one introducing POV into the article, the one advocating greenwashing by butting together in one paragraph the mention of severe environmental criticism with the mention of slight environmental commendation. Though the one cannot possibly balance the other, it is made to seem so. Rangoon11's style of communication has been bullying and stultifying rather than collegial. Thank you to Petrachan47 for bringing the issue to DR. Binksternet ( talk) 20:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to Rangoon11 statement to Binksternet, Rangoon is the editor who wrote the problematic portion of the 3rd paragraph beginning here. He is also the editor who added a false statement to the first para "[BP] also has major renewable energy activities, including in biofuels and wind power." I can find the diff if requested. petrarchan47 T c 22:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Here is where Rangoon11 added the second portion of the greenwashing. If editors are blatantly spinning articles and telling untruths in the DR, what (speedy) course of action is recommended? petrarchan47 T c 22:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
After exhaustive research, my opinion is the following suggestion for the controversy bit in the BP Intro best reflects the references available on this topic and is equal in weight to the other paragraphs in the intro as far as their detail and length. I did not cover the "political influence" aspect, anyone who cares to research that bit is more than welcome. petrarchan47 T c 01:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC) petrarchan47 T c 01:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I added 'more' controversies because they have been deleted from the article, and the Lockerbie release was never added. I made a note that I would be adding Lockerbie weeks ago. If anyone questions whether my suggestion for the Intro is POV, first please read the Intro now, it reads like it's meant more for folks looking to buy BP stock. Also please do a quick search "BP, safety" - that is all I did. In every single article, all three accidents were mentioned. Even though Alaska and Texas were dwarfed by the Gulf spill, they are considered in the literature to be extreme cases. My Intro suggestion is simply a reflection of what's out there. You will have to do your own search to see what I mean. This is actually a watered down version of the information on this topic. BP has had far more accidents than any other oil company whilst pumping less oil, and there is a reason: after multiple investigations and internal BP reports - that BP took more risks and cost-cut in pursuit of profits. This information was not available until recently, so it makes no sense to call any past version of the Intro perfect - you had limited information at that time. Why should this new understanding regarding the accidents not be included? Would a normal encyclopedia have this info? If it was a good one, it would. Here is how the Intro looked before Rangoon's arrival. At this time there were many editors at the page, working peacefully together, and the Intro seemed NPOV except that undue weight was given to the DWH spill. Now it's more like a dictator is controlling the page, and it's been scrubbed of vital information and a sense of balance. petrarchan47 T c 19:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC) I also used the search terms "BP, accidents". I highly recommend doing a quick search like this to help with this DRN. petrarchan47 T c 20:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Also, there is no reason to continue to compare this to other "company articles" unless we are talking about guidelines for company articles. Arturo from BP left a link earlier in this discussion for company articles - there are NO separate rules for company articles. The suggestions in the link from Arturo aren't even being followed at the BP article. It says to put stock information in a section of the article, not clog the lede with it. Also please don't compare this article to Exxon and the like, they are not following Wikipedia guidelines if they do have controversies (like Exxon Valdez) and do not mention them in the Intro. We're not using other articles to help with the Intro, we are only using the Wikipedia guidelines for WP:Lede. petrarchan47 T c 05:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC) {od}
The suggestion might seem US-centric because BP itself is; the 2cd paragraph of the Intro states "Its largest division is BP America, which is the second-largest producer of oil and gas in the United States." Also, please stop suggesting a single sentence is sufficient, as it violates WP:Lede. petrarchan47 T c 22:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution volunteer note: Normally we close discussions after a few days with no discussion, but I am temporarily collapsing this one and giving it more time; See the discussion for details. If 10 days go by without activity I will close this. This discussion is still open: anyone who wishes may add comments, and anyone who wishes is free to uncollapse the discussion. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Should we add new content here? For now I am adding it above. petrarchan47 T c 01:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is the proposed paragraph again, to keep it with its references:
BP has received criticism for its political influence, price manipulation, [10] and greenwashing. [11] In the last decade the company was involved in a number of serious accidents in the US including the Texas City Refinery explosion, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, named the largest environmental disaster in US history. [12] [13] During this period, the company was convicted of two felony environmental crimes and a misdemeanor [14]and was levied 300 times more in fines by OSHA for refinery violations than any other oil company. [15] A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance. [16] [17] [18]
References
Premature, no recent talk page discussion. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 23:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Wrong venue. Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance is what you are looking for. Curb Chain ( talk) 02:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Sorry, but the English Wikipedia has no power over what the Italian Wikipedia chooses to do. Your block/ban should be appealed at the Italian Wikipedia, not here. If your IP address is blocked, you may still be able to use your talk page or email to appeal the block/ban - instructions should be available on the Italian Wikipedia. (A good place to start may be the blocking policy, but my Italian isn't so good, so I can't say for certain.) — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 01:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
"Dispute" filed without any prior discussion on article talk page. Guy Macon ( talk) 05:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
This is now under discussion at WP:ANI#User:Fry1989. The dispute resolution noticeboard isn't meant for disputes which are already under discussion at another venue, and it would make sense to keep all the discussion in one place. Feel free to post here again if there are still content issues remaining after the ANI thread concludes, however. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ( have a chat) 23:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Discussion moved to RSN. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Needs to move back to talk page or on to a merger discussion or a request for comments, no progress here and no volunteer willing to step in. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
This noticeboard is intended mostly for content disputes. This dispute appears to be solely about user conduct. RJR3333 is welcome to use
WP:Editor Review if he would like someone to review his actions. Topic ban proposals, if warranted, belong at
WP:AN. –
NULL ‹
talk› ‹ edits› 03:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
I am noticing bias on the BP article. There is only one other editor active on the page and we do not see things the same way. He sees my edits as POV pushing and continues to undo them. I see his editing as POV pushing and obviously pro-BP. He is having a hard time refraining from sharing his displeasure with me, which makes discussion a dead-end venture.
Here is the discussion: [ [1]] Here is the edit in question: [ [2]]
I took the problem to [ POV noticeboard] and received only one reply, which was in complete agreement with my stance. But this did nothing to help the situation.
There is an edit war going on as he has reverted my edit 3 times, and I have done the same (not in a 24 hour period though).
Users involved
Yes.
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=BP}} --~~~~
in a new section on each user's talk page.Resolving the dispute
Discussion and POV noticeboard
Please give suggestions for where to go from here. We may need some administrators to take a look and see which editor is POV pushing, and perhaps to ban them from editing the page, to me it looks like the other editor is working on behalf of BP to make their Wikipedia article favorable. Also, help with the edit in question would be great.
petrarchan47 T c 01:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Here are 2 discussions regarding other edits which look like POV pushing to me [ removal of BP oil spill financial aftermath] and [ removal of the fact that BP's oil spill was the largest accidental oil spill in marine history]. petrarchan47 T c 02:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I think an administrator's input could help. It looks to me that the points sought to be included are relevant and appropriate to this article. There seem to be only two editors involved and the opposition to the edit seems emotional and out of perspective. Coaster92 ( talk) 05:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Getting back on track: Bias and Undue Weight in the BP Lead Section:
Yet, in the 4 paragraph Lead, 1st paragraph last sentence: "[BP] also has major renewable energy activities, including in biofuels and wind power."
3rd paragraph of Lead: "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. < How is this related to --> ? > In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period." < ie, 4% >
The 3rd para has a single sentence : These are very rough estimates, mind you. But take a look at the page, it's blatantly obvious we have a problem here.
The intro is in clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines for [ Wikipedia:LEAD]. This is what we're here to remedy. Discuss. petrarchan47 T c 22:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
"BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases."
It makes the point that BP has been found wanting but then shows balance by going on to say what BP is doing about it. I hope this helps.
Dormskirk (
talk) 23:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
petrarchan47 T c 04:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Rangoon, please see the following from the spill article:
In September 2011, the U.S. government published its final investigative report on the accident.[38] In essence, that report states that the main cause was the defective cement job, and put most of the fault for the oil spill with BP, also faulting Deepwater Horizon operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton.[39][40] Investigations continue, with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stating on April 24 2012, "The Deepwater Horizon Task Force is continuing its investigation into the explosion and will hold accountable those who violated the law in connection with the largest environmental disaster in US history". The first arrest related to the spill was in April 2012; an engineer was charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly deleting 300 text messages showing BP knew the flow rate was three times higher than initial claims by the company, and knew that Top Kill was unlikely to succeed, but claimed otherwise.[41][42][43]
In view of the fact that BP has been been found to be largely responsible for what the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder calls the largest environmental disaster in US history, I would expect nothing less than a paragraph in the lede to summarize the Gulf spill. You seem to want to suggest that it is just "two editors in this thread [who are] primarily concerned with the environmental impact of BP's activities" as though certain editors had to really dig deep to find the dirt on BP and bias the article with it. That is absurd. Gandydancer ( talk) 15:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I am adding my comment as I was invited at my talk to join this discussion by both involved parties. I am not the major editor of this article; however, I have previously made edits about issues related to this discussion, e.g. concerning Deepwater Horizon and BP Solar. Altogether, between 25 May 2010 and 16 June 2012 I have made 35 edits to that article, of them 10 edits are minor. If I understand correctly this dispute resolution is limited to the lead of the article, so I will comment only the lead.
As a general rule, the lead should only summarize the article and all specific details should be provided in the relevant sections. Therefore, I don't think that the lead should discuss individual accidents or particular investments. However, against this understanding I added to the third paragraph the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as an example. My intention was to have this addition as compromise. However, as I said, if mentioned in the lead, it does not need its own sentence or paragraph. If there will be consensus that no cases should be mentioned in the lead, I have nothing against removing this mentioning.
As of the rest of this paragraph, I think that the fact that "In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change" is justified to be in the lead. At the same time, I don't think that the information about renewable energy investments should be there. At its current stage, it may give an impression of "green washing". Therefore I propose to remove the last sentence of the third paragraph and to modify the last sentence of the first paragraph as following: "It also has renewable energy activities with annual investments over US$1 billion in the development of renewable energy sources, such as biofuels and wind power.
Concerning the lead in general, I also think that some information mentioning BP's different roots such as Anglo-Persian Oil Company or Amoco would be useful. However, I don't have any specific proposal concerning this. Beagel ( talk) 11:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
"BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents, including the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases."
I hope this helps. Dormskirk ( talk) 21:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
It looks to me as if Rangoon11 is the one introducing POV into the article, the one advocating greenwashing by butting together in one paragraph the mention of severe environmental criticism with the mention of slight environmental commendation. Though the one cannot possibly balance the other, it is made to seem so. Rangoon11's style of communication has been bullying and stultifying rather than collegial. Thank you to Petrachan47 for bringing the issue to DR. Binksternet ( talk) 20:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to Rangoon11 statement to Binksternet, Rangoon is the editor who wrote the problematic portion of the 3rd paragraph beginning here. He is also the editor who added a false statement to the first para "[BP] also has major renewable energy activities, including in biofuels and wind power." I can find the diff if requested. petrarchan47 T c 22:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Here is where Rangoon11 added the second portion of the greenwashing. If editors are blatantly spinning articles and telling untruths in the DR, what (speedy) course of action is recommended? petrarchan47 T c 22:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
After exhaustive research, my opinion is the following suggestion for the controversy bit in the BP Intro best reflects the references available on this topic and is equal in weight to the other paragraphs in the intro as far as their detail and length. I did not cover the "political influence" aspect, anyone who cares to research that bit is more than welcome. petrarchan47 T c 01:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC) petrarchan47 T c 01:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I added 'more' controversies because they have been deleted from the article, and the Lockerbie release was never added. I made a note that I would be adding Lockerbie weeks ago. If anyone questions whether my suggestion for the Intro is POV, first please read the Intro now, it reads like it's meant more for folks looking to buy BP stock. Also please do a quick search "BP, safety" - that is all I did. In every single article, all three accidents were mentioned. Even though Alaska and Texas were dwarfed by the Gulf spill, they are considered in the literature to be extreme cases. My Intro suggestion is simply a reflection of what's out there. You will have to do your own search to see what I mean. This is actually a watered down version of the information on this topic. BP has had far more accidents than any other oil company whilst pumping less oil, and there is a reason: after multiple investigations and internal BP reports - that BP took more risks and cost-cut in pursuit of profits. This information was not available until recently, so it makes no sense to call any past version of the Intro perfect - you had limited information at that time. Why should this new understanding regarding the accidents not be included? Would a normal encyclopedia have this info? If it was a good one, it would. Here is how the Intro looked before Rangoon's arrival. At this time there were many editors at the page, working peacefully together, and the Intro seemed NPOV except that undue weight was given to the DWH spill. Now it's more like a dictator is controlling the page, and it's been scrubbed of vital information and a sense of balance. petrarchan47 T c 19:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC) I also used the search terms "BP, accidents". I highly recommend doing a quick search like this to help with this DRN. petrarchan47 T c 20:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Also, there is no reason to continue to compare this to other "company articles" unless we are talking about guidelines for company articles. Arturo from BP left a link earlier in this discussion for company articles - there are NO separate rules for company articles. The suggestions in the link from Arturo aren't even being followed at the BP article. It says to put stock information in a section of the article, not clog the lede with it. Also please don't compare this article to Exxon and the like, they are not following Wikipedia guidelines if they do have controversies (like Exxon Valdez) and do not mention them in the Intro. We're not using other articles to help with the Intro, we are only using the Wikipedia guidelines for WP:Lede. petrarchan47 T c 05:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC) {od}
The suggestion might seem US-centric because BP itself is; the 2cd paragraph of the Intro states "Its largest division is BP America, which is the second-largest producer of oil and gas in the United States." Also, please stop suggesting a single sentence is sufficient, as it violates WP:Lede. petrarchan47 T c 22:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution volunteer note: Normally we close discussions after a few days with no discussion, but I am temporarily collapsing this one and giving it more time; See the discussion for details. If 10 days go by without activity I will close this. This discussion is still open: anyone who wishes may add comments, and anyone who wishes is free to uncollapse the discussion. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Should we add new content here? For now I am adding it above. petrarchan47 T c 01:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is the proposed paragraph again, to keep it with its references:
BP has received criticism for its political influence, price manipulation, [10] and greenwashing. [11] In the last decade the company was involved in a number of serious accidents in the US including the Texas City Refinery explosion, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, named the largest environmental disaster in US history. [12] [13] During this period, the company was convicted of two felony environmental crimes and a misdemeanor [14]and was levied 300 times more in fines by OSHA for refinery violations than any other oil company. [15] A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance. [16] [17] [18]
References
Premature, no recent talk page discussion. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 23:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Wrong venue. Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance is what you are looking for. Curb Chain ( talk) 02:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Sorry, but the English Wikipedia has no power over what the Italian Wikipedia chooses to do. Your block/ban should be appealed at the Italian Wikipedia, not here. If your IP address is blocked, you may still be able to use your talk page or email to appeal the block/ban - instructions should be available on the Italian Wikipedia. (A good place to start may be the blocking policy, but my Italian isn't so good, so I can't say for certain.) — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 01:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
"Dispute" filed without any prior discussion on article talk page. Guy Macon ( talk) 05:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
This is now under discussion at WP:ANI#User:Fry1989. The dispute resolution noticeboard isn't meant for disputes which are already under discussion at another venue, and it would make sense to keep all the discussion in one place. Feel free to post here again if there are still content issues remaining after the ANI thread concludes, however. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ( have a chat) 23:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|