This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
Per the above and my own recent experiences trying to find help for problems, I was wondering if it would be helpful to have a front page section listing volunteer neutral editors who want to help and then for us to go out and get some?? It would make it less haphazard trying to find editors neutral on and willing/unafraid to deal with the topic. And if there were complaints they were just overboard biased, we could remove them. (Of course, that whole process in itself might make doing this difficult.) After 1.5 years of active editing, it took me rewriting these pages and looking at or trying the variety of dispute resolution resources I had not yet tried to get a better picture of how to deal with issues. I find that sometimes you get good advice, sometimes none, sometimes POV viewpoints that reek of canvassing and tag teaming, and there's the problem I'm having with at least one, maybe two, editors following me around saying negative things to sabotage my requests for help. Having a neutral editor easily available would help with all those problems! CarolMooreDC ( talk) 19:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
First, I'm hoping more people will come back here once holidays really over next week. ;-) Plus more problems should be arising related to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and related changes across various articles. Second, see my proposal on [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/I-P_editing_battleground_statistics#Reorganizing_article.3F| Reorganizing IPCOLL statistics to basically list just an analysis of actual Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Log_of_notifications and Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Log of blocks and bans. Third, I just moved Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Citing_and_reporting_incidents back to main page as a separate section but have a few questions of things I don't understand that should be made clear/corrected. But I think we need some examples of what raises to that level, as opposed to the other places to report mentioned in the next paragraph. (Incivility, sockpuppets, etc.) (Looking at the Warnings and Blocks helpful and if there's an analysis page, that might help explain.)
I finally figured out what WP:flagged revisions are and oppose them because I can imagine a POV clique taking over I-P articles. Share your opinion here Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Trial Also on what to do about BLP's with flagged revisions one option here: Wikipedia:Protecting_BLP_articles_feeler_survey CarolMooreDC ( talk) 21:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Obviously this could be relevant to this project and people might want to comment. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_enforcement. Runs til Feb 21. If people want to run their own thoughts by here, first, feel free. I might later. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 15:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Community expectation of Checkuser Considering there are checkusers with strong POVs on both sides of the issue, this is quite relevant. In fact I opined that people who edit a lot on this issue should not be checkusers at all. One of the issues is a Board to hear complaints, which I think may have arisen as a proposal because of complaints about at least one of the check users. It makes one question whole process. (Of course there is wikiscanners Poor Man's Check User but it's not very good, at this point anyway, and certainly not "official."} CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
What do people think about having a barnstar that can be awarded by the project? (I'm thinking of something like the § Sri Lanka Reconciliation Award.) I just came across this message by user talk:JGGardiner, which was well received. How about an award for him? — Sebastian 18:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Draft guidelines have been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Placename guidelines, and related discussion to its talk page. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 21:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
From the "to do" list above:
Article methods and
Article workshop [see correction below] which haven't been used, at least until they are made more workable and/or used
CarolMooreDC (
talk) 13:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
May 3
Ravpapa
Decide for yourself. Here is a translation of the schedule for the conference:
12:30 - 13:15 Reception
13:15 - 14:00 Opening session:
14:00 - 15:45 Wikipedia and Wiki technology in Education and in Universities
15:45 - 16:15 Coffee break
16:15 - 17:45 The character of the Wikipedia
17:45 - 19:30 Free content in the Wikipedia and on the net
-- Ravpapa ( talk) 05:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the use of images in articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict at Talk:Qassam rocket#Osher Twito picture that might interest editors. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 16:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement: this may be of interest to people here. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless I was totally senile back in July 2008 there was not search box at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Either way, I just noticed it today, as I was going through updating the listing at the page. I don't mind continuing to do it a) because it makes me keep up on WP:RS discussions, if often belately and b) because it's a good overall list of different sources (including new ones for some people) and issues for people too look into. Any thoughts? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 15:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
In relation to remedy
13.1 of
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria,
I have requested an update on progress at:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Placename_guidelines#Current_status
for the proposed guidelines currently located at:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Placename guidelines. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The one that only says "This user participates in WP:IPCOLL" and leave the new one that says "This user participates in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration."??? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 00:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I could substitute the new one for the old one if no one objects. That way no one has to change anything on their user page. We can still keep the old one in case anyone changes their mind.
{{ User WP IPCOLL}}
السلام-שלום | This user participates in WP:IPCOLL. |
{{ User WP IPCOLL 2}}
السلام-שלום | This user participates in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. |
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Me likes.-- Cerejota ( talk) 04:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
For lack of a better project page for this: User_talk:Cerejota#How_I_am_voting_on_the_2009_WMF_Board_Foundation-- Cerejota ( talk) 04:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Over the months I've done a few user talk messages such as that at the ones at the start of User_talk:Jim_Fitzgerald#The_I.2FP_conflict.2C_Wikiprojects_and_policies and [1]. I wonder whether having a project policy to try and post a tailored welcome message to people showing an interest in the I/P area would be useful. Often first contacts with new editors are hostile messages from supporters of the other side of the conflict. -- Peter cohen ( talk) 14:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a fairly extensive library which I am beginning to try to catalog. Much is still in boxes in my attic but... I have started to put the list on my user page. If anyone would like me to check any of the pages in any of the books listed, or look anything up, I would be more than happy to do so. While the books clearly lean to one "side," I would be happy to research for either view. Facts is facts. Feel free to leave any queries on my talk page. Thanks. Stellarkid ( talk) 19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You have a section on Dispute Resolution on the project page, where you suggest going to a neutral editor. Obviously most of the editors as part of this project would not be neutral. However is there a list of neutral editors (agreed by both sides of this conflict to be neutral?) where we could go for a second opinion? If not, that would certainly be a good project to embark on. Stellarkid ( talk) 16:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
Per the above and my own recent experiences trying to find help for problems, I was wondering if it would be helpful to have a front page section listing volunteer neutral editors who want to help and then for us to go out and get some?? It would make it less haphazard trying to find editors neutral on and willing/unafraid to deal with the topic. And if there were complaints they were just overboard biased, we could remove them. (Of course, that whole process in itself might make doing this difficult.) After 1.5 years of active editing, it took me rewriting these pages and looking at or trying the variety of dispute resolution resources I had not yet tried to get a better picture of how to deal with issues. I find that sometimes you get good advice, sometimes none, sometimes POV viewpoints that reek of canvassing and tag teaming, and there's the problem I'm having with at least one, maybe two, editors following me around saying negative things to sabotage my requests for help. Having a neutral editor easily available would help with all those problems! CarolMooreDC ( talk) 19:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
First, I'm hoping more people will come back here once holidays really over next week. ;-) Plus more problems should be arising related to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and related changes across various articles. Second, see my proposal on [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/I-P_editing_battleground_statistics#Reorganizing_article.3F| Reorganizing IPCOLL statistics to basically list just an analysis of actual Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Log_of_notifications and Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Log of blocks and bans. Third, I just moved Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Citing_and_reporting_incidents back to main page as a separate section but have a few questions of things I don't understand that should be made clear/corrected. But I think we need some examples of what raises to that level, as opposed to the other places to report mentioned in the next paragraph. (Incivility, sockpuppets, etc.) (Looking at the Warnings and Blocks helpful and if there's an analysis page, that might help explain.)
I finally figured out what WP:flagged revisions are and oppose them because I can imagine a POV clique taking over I-P articles. Share your opinion here Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Trial Also on what to do about BLP's with flagged revisions one option here: Wikipedia:Protecting_BLP_articles_feeler_survey CarolMooreDC ( talk) 21:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Obviously this could be relevant to this project and people might want to comment. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_enforcement. Runs til Feb 21. If people want to run their own thoughts by here, first, feel free. I might later. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 15:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Community expectation of Checkuser Considering there are checkusers with strong POVs on both sides of the issue, this is quite relevant. In fact I opined that people who edit a lot on this issue should not be checkusers at all. One of the issues is a Board to hear complaints, which I think may have arisen as a proposal because of complaints about at least one of the check users. It makes one question whole process. (Of course there is wikiscanners Poor Man's Check User but it's not very good, at this point anyway, and certainly not "official."} CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
What do people think about having a barnstar that can be awarded by the project? (I'm thinking of something like the § Sri Lanka Reconciliation Award.) I just came across this message by user talk:JGGardiner, which was well received. How about an award for him? — Sebastian 18:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Draft guidelines have been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Placename guidelines, and related discussion to its talk page. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 21:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
From the "to do" list above:
Article methods and
Article workshop [see correction below] which haven't been used, at least until they are made more workable and/or used
CarolMooreDC (
talk) 13:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
May 3
Ravpapa
Decide for yourself. Here is a translation of the schedule for the conference:
12:30 - 13:15 Reception
13:15 - 14:00 Opening session:
14:00 - 15:45 Wikipedia and Wiki technology in Education and in Universities
15:45 - 16:15 Coffee break
16:15 - 17:45 The character of the Wikipedia
17:45 - 19:30 Free content in the Wikipedia and on the net
-- Ravpapa ( talk) 05:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the use of images in articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict at Talk:Qassam rocket#Osher Twito picture that might interest editors. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 16:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement: this may be of interest to people here. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless I was totally senile back in July 2008 there was not search box at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Either way, I just noticed it today, as I was going through updating the listing at the page. I don't mind continuing to do it a) because it makes me keep up on WP:RS discussions, if often belately and b) because it's a good overall list of different sources (including new ones for some people) and issues for people too look into. Any thoughts? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 15:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
In relation to remedy
13.1 of
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria,
I have requested an update on progress at:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Placename_guidelines#Current_status
for the proposed guidelines currently located at:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Placename guidelines. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The one that only says "This user participates in WP:IPCOLL" and leave the new one that says "This user participates in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration."??? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 00:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I could substitute the new one for the old one if no one objects. That way no one has to change anything on their user page. We can still keep the old one in case anyone changes their mind.
{{ User WP IPCOLL}}
السلام-שלום | This user participates in WP:IPCOLL. |
{{ User WP IPCOLL 2}}
السلام-שלום | This user participates in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. |
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Me likes.-- Cerejota ( talk) 04:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
For lack of a better project page for this: User_talk:Cerejota#How_I_am_voting_on_the_2009_WMF_Board_Foundation-- Cerejota ( talk) 04:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Over the months I've done a few user talk messages such as that at the ones at the start of User_talk:Jim_Fitzgerald#The_I.2FP_conflict.2C_Wikiprojects_and_policies and [1]. I wonder whether having a project policy to try and post a tailored welcome message to people showing an interest in the I/P area would be useful. Often first contacts with new editors are hostile messages from supporters of the other side of the conflict. -- Peter cohen ( talk) 14:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a fairly extensive library which I am beginning to try to catalog. Much is still in boxes in my attic but... I have started to put the list on my user page. If anyone would like me to check any of the pages in any of the books listed, or look anything up, I would be more than happy to do so. While the books clearly lean to one "side," I would be happy to research for either view. Facts is facts. Feel free to leave any queries on my talk page. Thanks. Stellarkid ( talk) 19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You have a section on Dispute Resolution on the project page, where you suggest going to a neutral editor. Obviously most of the editors as part of this project would not be neutral. However is there a list of neutral editors (agreed by both sides of this conflict to be neutral?) where we could go for a second opinion? If not, that would certainly be a good project to embark on. Stellarkid ( talk) 16:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)