Jump to content

Talk:Ganas: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Eroberer (talk | contribs)
481 edits
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,675,452 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Cooperatives}}, {{WikiProject Urban studies and planning}}.
 
(110 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader|search=y}}
{{Talk header|search=y}}
⚫
{{Article history| action1 = GAN
{{WPB|collapsed=yes|1=
⚫
{{WikiProject Cooperatives|class=|importance=}}
{{planning|class=|importance=}}
⚫
}}
{{ArticleHistory
⚫
| action1 = GAN
| action1date = 12:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
| action1date = 12:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
| action1link = Talk:Ganas/GA1
| action1link = Talk:Ganas/GA1
Line 14: Line 9:
| topic = Social sciences and society
| topic = Social sciences and society
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|1=
{{findnotice}}
⚫
{{WikiProject Cooperatives|importance=}}

{{WikiProject Urban studies and planning|importance=}}
==Article locked due to edit warring==
⚫
}}
The two main contributors to this article both want the same thing - a balanced and accurate article on Ganas. However, as they are locked in an ongoing edit dispute despite a warning, I have locked the article from editing for one week to allow time to cool down. This talkpage will remain open, and the option is there for the main contributors to work together on a solution, though I would suggest a complete break for the week, and I will come back in a week's time to oversee a discussion as to the best way forward. I will, though, echo BelovedFreak's comments, that this is not a topic I have much interest in, nor is it a significant topic, so I do not wish to spend a lot of time working on it. I am prepared to give some of my time to help work toward a solution, but if the main contributors are not willing to co-operate in any way, or prove difficult, or this becomes tiresome and messy, then I will withdraw. Is that understood? <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>Tea time</sup>]]</span> 11:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

:Before you withdraw will you refer the matter to appropriate venue for resolution? I am not getting much response from attempts at dispute resolution, I suspect because most share your and BelovedFreak's sentiments. Would you be able to get other editors involved? From what I have seen Marelstrom rejects any participation from me on principle. [[User:Eroberer|Eroberer]] ([[User talk:Eroberer|talk]]) 11:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


== Flyswatting again ==
::Another vote for more editors! The kind that write paragraphs. --[[User:Marelstrom|Marelstrom]] ([[User talk:Marelstrom|talk]]) 20:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


Reverted to 439914645 revision, Flyswatting's repetitive changes after SilkTork's intervention is disruptive and not an improvement with the exception of the first paragraph which I left intact. Flyswatting and assorted socks please stop sabotaging this page. [[User:Eroberer|Eroberer]] ([[User talk:Eroberer|talk]]) 15:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I have done a fair bit of dispute resolution. I don't do much these days because it's very time-consuming; however, I am prepared to help out on this as long as progress is being made. As for venues - this talkpage is the most appropriate. Stuff to bear in mind:


:I could say the same thing about you. --[[User:Flyswatting|Flyswatting]] ([[User talk:Flyswatting|talk]]) 06:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
1) It is very common to get heated during Wikipedia content disputes. That is the reason for the break, to give you both a chance to cool down. When we start the discussions on the 9th I want you both to concentrate on the article, and the problems with the article. It is taken as read, that you are both frustrated with each other at the moment and have a lot of built up resentment, but it doesn't help me when you make personal comments - that simply diverts attention from the real issues. I understand the frustrations you are going through (most of us do experience them when editing on Wikipedia!), and my strategy is to type out all the angry personal remarks, then - before pressing Save - I go through what I have written and edit it - cutting out the personal remarks and adjusting the tone so that it is as neutral as possible.


== New York Post? Seriously? ==
2) I may propose solutions that one or other of you are not happy with. I will listen carefully to objections, but only if there are reasons and explanations. My view is that "I don't like that" is purely an emotional response and carries no weight. Logical discussion and evidence will be treated with respect and considered carefully.


The New York Post is well-known for being a sensationalist tabloid and has been involved in numerous controversies regarding their reporting. Just look at Wikipedia's own article on the publication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post. IMO, this is in no way a reliable enough source of reference for a Wikipedia article. I have removed three sentences that exclusively use The New York Post as a reference, and removed it as one of the references in another sentence. Also changed "several" to "at least two" in "Controversies" section, as it is a more specific number and there were only two ex-members in the references cited that made the specified allegations (see: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)
3) I may at times refer to policies, guidelines and Wikipedia essays. Policies have to be followed, guidelines carry a lot of consensus, so there needs to be a well argued rationale for going against guidelines, and essays are advisory and helpful. Policies, etc, are open to interpretation - if necessary I will indicate where I feel the policy is clear, and where it might be open to a different interpretation.
-SunshineChap 2/9/2013 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/65.216.227.186|65.216.227.186]] ([[User talk:65.216.227.186|talk]]) 17:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I suspect it is a reliable source for the revised sentence in the lead. [[User:Dmadeo|dm]] ([[User talk:Dmadeo|talk]]) 18:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
4) I will be expecting a short, clear and helpful explanation from each of you as to what you feel is wrong with the article, and the direction you feel the article should be going in. In this explanation I do not want any mention of the other person, their behaviour or attitude, or any editing problems. It is purely the content of the article that I am interested in.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I will see you on the 9th. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>Tea time</sup>]]</span> 10:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on [[Ganas]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=804705765 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:Thanks for the vacation SilkTork. Lately the problem seems to be mostly in the summary and there needs to be an objective decision about what belongs there. I think the summary should reflect the contents of the article, in this case perhaps one sentence representing each of the four sections: history, culture, business and controversy. This was fairly well accomplished [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ganas&oldid=419960894 in the March 21 version], though it could still use work; specifically BelovedFreak's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ganas#GA_Review comment about the shooting appearing in the history section], which I agree is awkward. If the shooting were to appear in the controversy section that would solve several problems, not only in the summary but in the flow of the article as a whole.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227041205/http://activistsolutions.org/about/who_we_are/mildred_gordon to http://activistsolutions.org/about/who_we_are/mildred_gordon


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:The details about how many people started the group, how many it contains now, what the work arrangements are, details about their businesses are all included in the body of the article; don't think they all belong in the summary. They are not the major points of the article, and are somewhat promotional. There seems to be some opinion that because these things appear more "neutral" they provide a better summary; I disagree. There is also much misunderstanding about what neutrality means; I think it means all viewpoints are represented, not anything that could be construed as critical is eliminated.


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:That's my position in a nutshell, trying to keep it short! [[User:Eroberer|Eroberer]] ([[User talk:Eroberer|talk]]) 00:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 16:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
::Thankyou. That is clear and sensible. By the summary I assume you mean the lead. The guidance on the lead section is - [[WP:Lead]], and it does advise, as you say, that the lead should "reflect the contents of the article".
::I look forward to hearing from Marelstrom. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>Tea time</sup>]]</span> 09:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


== Jeff Gross returned to New York? ==
*I have just noticed that Marelstrom has been blocked. A new account, [[User:Flyswatting]], has been created, and has edited this talkpage twice, though I have removed the comments as they are unhelpful personal attacks. It is possible that Flyswatting is Marelstrom. I have left a warning on Flyswatting's talkpage, and if they persist in making personal attacks, then that account will also be blocked. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>Tea time</sup>]]</span> 17:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


[[User:StanfordMITPhd|<bdi>StanfordMITPhd</bdi>]] Hi, I have very little experience editing and I hope I'm not committing a faux pas here. Am I reading the history correctly that you added that the Esquire magazine says Jeff Gross moved back to New York? I don't think that is true, and I cannot find that in the article. Can you point me to that? Thank you for your time. [[Special:Contributions/108.29.219.186|108.29.219.186]] ([[User talk:108.29.219.186|talk]]) 22:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The article is written as if someone chose to find as many negative references as they could about Ganas, and sounds like hate propaganda. In particular about certain living persons [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons]]. If you would like to read an article that doesn't focus on negative connotations, try this one: http://brooklynrail.org/2006/05/streets/utopia-has-a-web-site#bio --[[User:Flyswatting|Flyswatting]] ([[User talk:Flyswatting|talk]]) 17:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


:I agree. Thanks for noting. Made the change. [[User:StanfordMITPhd|StanfordMITPhd]] ([[User talk:StanfordMITPhd|talk]]) 12:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
:It would be good if Marelstrom would get themself unblocked or if Flyswatting would state their case so we can get on with it. The Brooklyn Rail piece is referenced several times in the article. It is one of the few (only?) third party descriptions of feedback learning and so is very valuable. [[User:Eroberer|Eroberer]] ([[User talk:Eroberer|talk]]) 13:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:22, 14 February 2024

Former good article nomineeGanas was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 21, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

Flyswatting again

[edit]

Reverted to 439914645 revision, Flyswatting's repetitive changes after SilkTork's intervention is disruptive and not an improvement with the exception of the first paragraph which I left intact. Flyswatting and assorted socks please stop sabotaging this page. Eroberer (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could say the same thing about you. --Flyswatting (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New York Post? Seriously?

[edit]

The New York Post is well-known for being a sensationalist tabloid and has been involved in numerous controversies regarding their reporting. Just look at Wikipedia's own article on the publication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post. IMO, this is in no way a reliable enough source of reference for a Wikipedia article. I have removed three sentences that exclusively use The New York Post as a reference, and removed it as one of the references in another sentence. Also changed "several" to "at least two" in "Controversies" section, as it is a more specific number and there were only two ex-members in the references cited that made the specified allegations (see: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words) -SunshineChap 2/9/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.227.186 (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is a reliable source for the revised sentence in the lead. dm (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ganas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Gross returned to New York?

[edit]

StanfordMITPhd Hi, I have very little experience editing and I hope I'm not committing a faux pas here. Am I reading the history correctly that you added that the Esquire magazine says Jeff Gross moved back to New York? I don't think that is true, and I cannot find that in the article. Can you point me to that? Thank you for your time. 108.29.219.186 (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thanks for noting. Made the change. StanfordMITPhd (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ganas&oldid=1207355521"