Talk:Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles/Archive 1

Best scores

Prior to the competition, the existing ISU seasons best scores were as follows.

Total Score	Julia Lipnitskaia (RUS)	209.72	2014 Europeans	17 January 2014
Free program		139.75
Short program	Mao Asada (JPN)	73.18	2013 Skate America	19 October 2013

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 13:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Response

The response is basically a one-sided collection of people's opinions who only saw that stumble on Sotnikova's third jump in one of the combinations, why do we need the opinion of these people if they think all you need to do is skate a clean but easier program? 99.240.54.57 (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added some responses from Stojko and Weir, I think that's quite enough of quoting the media, though, so I removed the recently added quote from some Spanish media, that's just unnessesary 99.240.54.57 (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the opinions that count are those of the experts. I am sure we have not heard the last of this, given Salt Lake City. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Inside Skating articles

I've been seeing a couple paragraphs continually pop-up on this page. There are slightly different version, but they more or less go like this:

After the Olympics, Former figure skating judge Sonia Bianchetti wrote a review on Inside Skating website, addressing inconsistencies with GOEs and PCS scores, favoring Russian skaters Adelina Sotnikova and Julia Lipnitskaya during the short program in Sochi 2014 Olympics. - Ref: Something is rotten in the state of Sochi: analyzing Ladies’ short program

Inside Skating released another article titled "Letter to ISU office holders: “People deserve to know if a mistake was made", addressing the faults in technical calls at Sochi Olympics. Adelina's triple triple combination jump should have received wrong edge and under rotation; this actually means that Adelina has one less triple. Also, Step sequence levels were not correctly awarded for Yuna kim, as she deserved level 4, whereas Adelina should have received level 3. - Ref: Letter to ISU office holders: “People deserve to know if a mistake was made"

First paragraph: 1) It says "Sonia Bianchetti wrote a review on Inside Skating website". The reference article is not by Sonia Bianchetti but by Florentina Tone (who to my knowledge, is not a former figure skating judge). 2) In the referenced article, the part about Adelina Sotnikova and Julia Lipnitskaya scores increasing is about the 2014 Europeans, not the 2014 Olympics. Unless your going to start a debate that a different tournament having bad judges, this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 3) This paragraph also has issues with capitalization, abbreviations not expanded, using Julia instead of Yulia, and lacking wikilinks.

Second paragraph: 1) This is already included in the article - the lines "Former figure skater Tim Gerber argued that Sotnikova's triple triple combination jump should have received wrong edge and under rotation. Gerber also asserted that the step sequence levels were not correctly awarded for Kim and Sotnikova." 2) There were hundreds of articles written on this issue their is no need to include a specific article's title. 3) I did not see in the article anything stating that it made Sotnikova have "one less triple". This seems like original research or an addition to what the article stated. 4) This paragraph also has issues with capitalization, using first names instead of last, and lacking wikilinks.

Before adding back these paragraphs, please discuss here or edit them to remove the issues I have brought up. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

March 23, 2014 cleanup

I've previously tried to engage Heritoctavus (talk) to discuss on this talk page and/or on his/her talk page. Heritoctavus has chosen not to engage on either talk pages and instead continued with his/her disruptive edits.

I've explained the reason for undoing many of Heritoctavus' edits on his/her talk page. But I'll reiterate here:

• For article continuity, paragraph about KOC intending to submit a complaint needs to be retained in the "Official responses" even if summarized at the top of the article.
• Top of article is summary. The summary already says KOC intends to file a complaint. There is no need to have a full paragraph here (even if it's super-duper notable¹, a summary is sufficient). If readers want to know more, then they know to jump to that section using the table of contents or just scrolling down. ^1 Heritoctavus seems to be under the impression that this controversy is the biggest in any sports history. S/he made the following comment on another page: "What about judging controversies in Sochi? I have never seen this controversial things in any sports before." May I point out the 2010 Olympics controversy or the 2002 Olympics scandal. This is just in figure skating since 2000. There have been hundreds of sports controversies bigger than this one.
• There is no need to tell users to go to section 4 or "self-citation" as Heritoctavus calls it. That's not done on Wikipedia, partially due to sections being self-numbering (if a new section is added, sections get re-numbered).

Further explanations:

• Heritoctavus keeps wanting to include that Sotnikova is from the host country at the top. My opinion is that this is irrelevant and unimportant. The only thing I can come up with is that it's meant to create an implication -> bias -> against WP:NPOV.
• The part about "journalistic debates" is already summarized on top. If readers want to know more, then they know to jump to that section using the table of contents or just scrolling down. If Heritoctavus wishes to replace the words "press controversy" with "journalistic debates" that's fine with me.

Heritoctavus also made two new additions that I'm reverting.

• I'm removing "Reuters UK" addition because it adds nothing to this article. The fact another newspaper noted a controversy adds nothing. The fact Kim said she had no comment, also adds nothing.
• I'm removing "Fox sports" addition because it adds nothing to this article. A sports reporter saying that there have been past controversies and that "conspiracy theories that are having a blast" doesn't add to this article. There is already a statement in that journalists questioned the composition of the judging panel, naming a specific journalist, doesn't add to this page.

Heritoctavus, I am asking that instead of engaging in further disruptive editing, you join the conversation on this talk page. Kirin13 (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying the issues and reverting.

1. ISU or IOC usually do not issue official response. If there is some issues, they do it in response to those issues. So, International Skating Union's 21 February 2014 statement is a response to the request by Korean skating union's officials. Think logically! Nobody suddenly issues a statement out of nothing. ( Guilty conscience needs no accuser ! ) There were issues and voices of criticism, so ISU reacted to that. That is why criticism has to come first then support and/or official response to the criticism has to follow it. (I also left this as a comment several times)

2. USA Today's report about the judging panel must be back under criticism. You created another section and arbitrarily moved my sentence against my warning, which constitutes vandalism.

3. Reuters UK report and Fox sports are reliable sources and what they reported are worth noting here. I will remove NYTimes article since it adds nothing but is supporting the already announced results by ISU. What the article is saying is the same as the judges. What was new ?

4. I have to add the sentence 'The results of this competition caused immediate controversies.' because this is what actually exists.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 March 2014‎ (UTC)

1. I believe the 21 February 2014 ISU statement was issued due to the public, journalistic, and expert debate. There is nothing to indicate that KSU or KOC made any request. As far as whether criticism or official response should come first - as I told FelixRosch, I have no opinion on that.

2.1. USA Today's report is criticism. The reason it was moved, as you noted, was because I made to sections. If you read the comments on the edit where this was done, it was explained: "separating into two controversies - Composition of the judging panel & Scores - this is done b/c scores have been acknowledged as final, but judge debate officially continues". As the overall section is named "Controversies", you're acknowledging there was multiple. This was my attempt to separate them into two controversies - one that is still open and one that is closed.

2.2. Heritoctavus, as you must realize, you are not the only editor on Wikipedia. If a different editor wishes to edit or move a sentence you write, it is NOT vandalism. The move was not arbitrarily - as it was explained in comment & above, it was to go into the new section.

3.1. No one said that Reuters UK and Fox Sports are not reputable sources. The reason they were removed is stated above in "March 23, 2014 cleanup" section. You have yet to respond to justify there inclusion. There were hundreds of articles written about this issue, there is no point in listing all of them. Similarly, your addition "ESPN's Bonnie D. Ford addressed the controversy regarding the judges in this figure skating event" adds nothing to this article, because there were dozens of reports who addressed this controversy. Listing all of them doesn't do anything for this article expect make it harder to read.

3.2. The reason for the inclusion of the The New York Times article is that it explains that Sotnikova did elements that Kim did not. This supports that Sotnikova a more technically challenging program. This is not explained anywhere else explained in this Wikipedia article.

4. I have no objection to having summary include mention of the controversy. I have objection to having "hosting country", which I have explained above in "March 23, 2014 cleanup" section, which you haven't replied to.

Kirin13 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

-- Let's discuss one by one

1. You wrote , the above, that "I believe the 21 February 2014 ISU statement was issued due to the public, journalistic, and expert debate". Then you agree that their official announcement is a response to the debates. That is why I say the debate comes first then, the response comes to the next. Action ->then reaction.

2. "USA Today's report is criticism." you agreed above! That is why it is under the section 'Criticism of the results' And you added "Separating into two controversies - Composition of the judging panel & Scores" But, as NeilN gave me a beautiful information, I use the same thing here - I see no Wikipedia-based guideline that mandates this seperation.

3. Vandalism is the word you first used when referring to my editing in Winter 2010 page. I never used that word before and I learned that this word is used in order to attack somebody that writes an the article in a different way. ( Normal meaning of Vandalism is distroying or ruining.)

4. "There were hundreds of articles written about this issue, there is no point in listing all of them." I totally agree with you. You are right at the point.We do not list up hundreds of thousands of news sources that support that scandal. But, at least a couple of more are necessary to convey the correct situation into Wikipedia. I only listed three out of thousands. Is it difficult to read? HOW MANY NEWSPAPERS ARE IN FAVOR OF ISU? Five? Ten? ( other than NYT )

5. You mentioned that "The New York Times article is that it explains that Sotnikova did elements that Kim did not." Correct ! It is true that Sotnikova got the gold medal because "Sotnikova did elements that Kim did not."

But,.... what? one more element while doing two foot landing and under rotation gave her gold? I STRONGLY WANT TO HOPE YOU KNOW FIGURE SKATING. And, what about the highly inflated artistry points? God.... I don't need to discuss it here since people who know about figure skating know what was wrong with the judgement. It is up to you if you post NYT again or not. But, do not delete my news!!

6. And you wrote that "I have no objection to having summary include mention of the controversy" Then why did you keep deleting the sentence ? Why? What do you so desperately want to hide?

7. Russia is the "hosting country" of the Sochi 2014 winter olympic games. Is it a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV ? I didn't know that. But, I need wikipedia's autoritative interpretation on this. I will follow wikipedia's judgement on this. I do not know how to do this. Could you do it?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Heritoctavus, you've made over a dozen talk comments by now - learn to sign your name. As explained before, type four tildes ( ~~~~ ). Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Yes, I "agree that their official announcement is a response to the debates." I have never argued this. As I've said above, I have no opinion about the order. The person you need to be arguing about this is with FelixRosch (talk).

2. USA Today's report is criticism of the composition of the judging panel. I agree, there is "no Wikipedia-based guideline that mandates this seperation". However, there are no Wikipedia guideline stating they must be together. I have given reason for the separation twice now: "'separating into two controversies - Composition of the judging panel & Scores - this is done b/c scores have been acknowledged as final, but judge debate officially continues'. As the overall section is named 'Controversies', you're acknowledging there was multiple. This was my attempt to separate them into two controversies - one that is still open and one that is closed." You have yet to give a single reason for non-separation. Furthermore, you were upset with me for created a new section, yet you have just created three new sections, making that argument fall flat.

3. "Vandalism ": And where on the 2010 pages was this? I can't find it. On the other hand, I do find you using the word toward me on the 2010 Ladies' talk page. Going forward to 2014 pages, I see you using this word toward me plenty of times, and I see myself using it only once toward you. That was when you were adding junk firsts on the 2014 page. Per Wikipedia vandalism page: "inserting obvious nonsense into a page" is vandalism. You might not like my edits, but all of them were made in good faith. The adding junk firsts wasn't made in good faith - you even admitted they were "Obsurd statistics". So, those edits could count as vandalism.

4. "at least a couple of more [news articles] are necessary to convey the correct situation into Wikipedia." That is false. Wikipedia only needs to relate the facts of the situation - news articles are used as references/citations. If you wish to add more <ref>, be my guest. On Wikipedia, news articles are not listed to show that news articles were written. As far articles in favor of the results, there were hundreds. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people who support the results. As a reminder, here on Wikipedia, we strive to be neutral - that is why I have added as much information in support as in opposition of the results.

5. NYT article gives information in support of the results that are otherwise not on this page. As far as your arguments for why it's wrong, that's original research and not allowed on Wikipedia. If you have citations for this information, then please add this information in the criticism section. As for not deleting your news - sorry, if I have a valid reason, I will. (By the way, I've already given you the valid reasons.)

6. I didn't delete that sentence. FelixRosch (talk) did.

7. "My opinion is that this is irrelevant and unimportant. The only thing I can come up with is that it's meant to create an implication -> bias -> against WP:NPOV." Please explain why you think it's relevant and important. Sotnikova is already listed as from Russia.

Kirin13 (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Heritoctavus (talk) has never asked me my opinion on this controversy, though probably assumed them. My opinion is irrelevant to Wikipedia, because only facts and opinions of experts are important, and Wikipedia editors should strive to be neutral. Just the same, in the hopes that Heritoctavus will cool down a bit and stop accusing me of who knows what, I'll state my opinion. Adelina Sotnikova PCS was through the roof compared to her previous performances. Also, one of the judges giving her practically all +3 GOE looks suspicious. On the other hand, Kim Yuna's performance wasn't as great as it was four years ago (my opinion). Were the scores inaccurate? I wouldn't bet against it. However, I don't know what the accurate scores would have been. I am not a figure skating technical expert (and I'm going to guess anyone reading this isn't one either, otherwise they would right now be giving interviews/quotes to a newspaper instead of arguing on Wikipedia). From my understanding of the news reporting, the results are final and KOC acknowledges this. There is a complaint on the composition of the judging panel that we'll have to wait and see what happens. Regardless, in the mean time, we must strive to write this article as neutrally as possible while stating the facts. Kirin13 (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Proceeding of discussion 1. Solved.

2. [pending] You said

• "no Wikipedia-based guideline that mandates this seperation"
• "However, there are no Wikipedia guideline stating they must be together."

What is your point?

3. [pending] YES ! moving to the new section --> destroying continuity of the section. Was this what you wanted? You will never succeed.

4. [pending] When 10 is dealt the same as 1000, do you call it neutral? It seems seriously biased in favor of the 10. There is no wikipedia rules for this. Fox sports news point is the judging controversy in figure skating has long history. I will rearrange some of them. Do not delete this time !!

5. Solved. As I said NYT is up to you. I don't care.

6. Solved.

7. [NOT SOLVED] I don't need to prove anything about the expression "Russia, the hosting country" This is normal English style. Usually, in English, people have tendancy to avoid repeating the same word and use an alternate expression. That is why I prefer "the hosting country". You have to prove that this expression violates any wikipedia policy. Or, ask administrator for intervention. The busybuddy C.Fred will love it.

8. NEW - needs discussion Reuters UK report is meaningful because it reported what Yuna Kim said just after the competition. And it is not even in subsection but in the Controversies head part. i will recover this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 05:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Heritoctavus, please sign your statements on talk pages. Also, please write in the section that you are commenting in. (Just because there is a newer section, doesn't mean all new comments need to be made there.) I moved your comment to the this section since you made it clear that it belongs in this section. Kirin13 (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not know how to sign this. I am busy recovering the article you are destroying.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 06:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've told you multiple times already how to sign (including once in this thread already). This is also explained twice on the edit page (both above the edit area & between the edit area and "Edit summary"). Type four tildes ( ~~~~ ). Btw, in my opinion you are the one who's is destroying this article. But unlike you, I am trying to keep this conversation civil. Kirin13 (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

2 My point is, you entire argument just fell apart. You need to provide better justification than "Wikipedia allows it."

3 What? I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say it's vandalism by "destroying continuity of the section". Sorry, no go for you. First of all, I justified the two sections. Second of all, it was done in good faith. Thus, no vandalism on my side. As far as your statement "You will never succeed", you should look at WP:WIN.

4 Sorry, your wrong. Just because you only read articles from one side, does not mean articles from the other side don't exist. You just call those articles biased and choose to ignore them. Don't bother telling me what to or not to delete. Instead, give an actual reason for inclusion.

7 You have yet to give reason for inclusion. Your reason "in English, people have tendancy to avoid repeating the same word" is lacking since no word is being repeated. Thus still no reason for inclusion.

8 Please tell me what Kim's statement adds? That she has no comment? If you like, I can add Sotnikova statement. But once again, it adds nothing to this controversy. If you really want to include this statement. It would be better placed in the Overall results section, but I don't think it adds anything to the discussion of these controversies.

Kirin13 (talk) 06:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

2. This is pointless, we're debating over nothing, so I say [closed]

3. Pretty sure this one is also pointless, so unless you have something to add I say [closed]

4. Don't cite news article to site that news articles existed. Cite news articles as <ref> when they had information that actually adds to this page.

7. I see what you did there, changing "Adelina Sotnikova of Russia" to "Adelina Sotnikova from the hosting country". I undid, because "of Russia" is more clear. Could you please explain why you want to add "hosting country" so badly. The only reason I can think for you wanting to include this so badly is to imply bias.

8. This is better discussed in next section - so for this section [closed]

Kirin13 (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing several articles

Full reasoning for removing articles:

• As previously stated: "I'm removing Reuters UK addition because it adds nothing to this article. The fact another newspaper noted a controversy adds nothing. The fact Kim said she had no comment, also adds nothing." No reason to support inclusion of this article was made (except 'to add an additional article to demonstrate articles were written' which was refuted above).
  • Though I removed previous lines about the Reuters UK article, I believe it does have some value. I have added the line "Questions over the judges, the judging system, and the anonymity of scores were also raised." citing this article.

• As previously stated: "I'm removing Fox sports addition because it adds nothing to this article. A sports reporter saying that there have been past controversies and that 'conspiracy theories that are having a blast' doesn't add to this article. There is already a statement in that journalists questioned the composition of the judging panel, naming a specific journalist, doesn't add to this page." No reason to support inclusion of this article was made.

• Removing ESPN article for same reason as above. I already noted it's lack of purpose for inclusion. No reason to support inclusion of this article was made.

Kirin13 (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional, removing "public's opinions" lines due to lack of notability & significance:

• Removing GoldenSkate forum thread. Lack of notability & significance. (Do you have a news article reporting on this thread?) Also claim "one of the biggest online forums on figure skating" is lacks citation.

• Removing today.yougov.com poll. The fact a website had a poll doesn't show anything. Websites have polls all the time. Lacks any information like number of people polled and results. Furthermore, lack notability & significance. (Do you have a news article reporting on this poll?)

• Removing ESPN poll. Lack of significance - doesn't add anything to this article. There is already statement on the 2 million signing a petition - what is 90% of 24,800 compared to 2,000,000 -> not much.

Kirin13 (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

-- my response

• Reuters UK is the only comment of Yuna Kim who is at the center of this turmoil.

This report IS significant. Prove why the only comment of Yuna Kim is not significant.

• ESPN poll is significant because it is more publically known than change.org

Have you heard about change.org before? Different poll, different organization, different website, different coverage, different target viewers. Both are significantly different, if you know about statistical sampling. Do you perhaps know about the difference between self-selection bias and random sampling?

• Removing today.yougov.com poll. Do as you want.

• Golden skate is a big figure skate forum.

This is the first one that appears in google search with keyword : figure skate forum

• Fox sports news point is the judging controversy in figure skating has long history. Their point of view is different. The present situation is what is expected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 06:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll be back on lunch time Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Reuters UK: As I stated above: Please tell me what Kim's statement adds? That she has no comment? If you like, I can add Sotnikova statement. But once again, it adds nothing to this controversy. If you really want to include this statement, it would be better placed in the Overall results section. However, I don't think it adds anything to the discussion of these controversies.

• ESPN poll: Yes, I heard about Change.org years ago. It's been around for seven years and quite popular. The figure skating one isn't even their most signed petition. For example, the Trayvon Martin petition has more signatures. Your lack of knowledge does not prove it's lack of relevance. Obviously, you "publically known" statement is false, since 2,038,684 vs 24,800, clearly says the Change.org petition was more publicly known than the ESPN poll. By the ESPN poll was not random sampling, people still choose to reply, thus still self-selection. So, what does this poll add to this article? That a poll was conducted? That 24,800 people choose to reply? So ... that doesn't add anything to this article.

• Golden skate: do you have a citation or not? What you gave is called original research. Thus lack of notability & significance. (Do you have a news article reporting on this thread?)

• Fox sports: What does that add to this controversy? That the ISU Judging System is long known to be messed up? If it says that, then add that instead of what you have.

Kirin13 (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Reuters UK: I've replaced with statement: "Both Sotnikova and Kim said they can not comment on the judging." It's cited by Reuters UK and Yahoo Sports articles. I do not see a reason to have direct quotes from either (since they basically say "no comment"), but if we do, we should have from both.

• Fox sports: Looking into this article, I don't think this is actually a criticism of the scores. Peter Schrager presents both sides of the debate. He says that judging controversies are common in figure skating, it should be expected, and that "this will blow over". If you can find an article saying "judging controversies are common in figure skating AND the judging system needs to be fixed so to prevent future controversies", then this article should be included in criticism section. But Fox's articles just doesn't say that. At best it's a neutral opinion of "so what".

Kirin13 (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Fox sports Peter Schrager pointed out that the judging controversy in figure skating has long history in this report Michelle Kwan said "hands down" OK? Do you understand English. This is not the expression of positive support But, the expression of giving up on the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 16:57, 25 March 2014‎ (UTC)

You did not explain the removal of USToday's second article. And sectional blanking of [public's opinion] is vandalism. Only remove what you want to do. I will recover it. Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Fox sports Peter Schrager pointed out that the judging controversy in figure skating has long history.... In this report Michelle Kwan said "hands down" OK? Do you understand English. This is not the expression of positive support But, the expression of giving up on the situation. Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 25 March 2014‎ (UTC)

For, Fox sports Peter Schrager "So, why would we expect the 2014 Sochi Games be any different than any of the other Winter Olympics in which the sport's final results were met with controversy, curious marks, and more than precarious makeups of the judging panels?" Read this first paragraph , very carefully. Questioning. Feel the sense. This is criticism. This is not the support for or justification of the controversial results. Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Reuters UK: Yuna Kim said something. This is her response. This is different from "NO comment". She said "... my words can change nothing." is a meaningful comment. She used the word "change". Why did she spoke that word? This is up to the readers. This is why I recovered this. Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:16, 25 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Ok, Heritoctavus, I see five comments of yours.

1) You're accusing me of not understanding English? Do you even know what the expression "hands down" means? It means "easily; unquestionably" 1, "without much effort; without question" 2. Michelle Kwan's comment was in favor of Adelina Sotnikova. I think you have just proven my understanding of English is better than yours.

2) I did not remove any USA Today articles. There were three before my edits and three after. Stop accusing me of things I have not done. And there was no section blanking - as the comments clearly state, the information was moved to the criticism section. Once again, stop accusing me of things I have not done. Once again, stop accusing me of vandalism.

3) same as 1)

4) You're quoting the article out of context. If you read the entire article, you will see that if anything Schrager is pro-Adelina Sotnikova and dismisses this controversy saying it'll "blow over". A reporting saying this controversy will blow over, if anything says that it's unimportant. Schrager also said that "conspiracy theorists having a blast", giving the impression that Schrager doesn't have much stock in these theories. Giving the overall tone of this article, your quote is taken out of context and does not reflect Schrager's views.

5) Are you saying Kim Yuna's comment was meant as criticism of the scores? If so, then it belongs in criticism section. If not, then it's non-comment.

Kirin13 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

---

• Schrager wrote : "blow over"

Please, read the whole sentence :

" this will blow over. Things like this always do in this sport." ..."You can't ignore history."

You don't feel the synical voice of the writer? If not, that is because you are biased.

• Sentence with Kwan's comment :

Also, read carefully the whole sentence :

[her response was eerily similar to Kim's. "Under the scoring system, hands down, Adelina won"]

Why do you think Schrager used the word 'eerily'? if he agrees that Adelina won. Why did Kwan add "Under the scoring system" when she said "hands down"? Don't you understand the two-sided meaning of "hands down" here? You think Kwan supports the result? or just accepting the situation, hands down?Got what I mean?

• Schrager wrote : "conspiracy theorists having a blast"

Please, read the whole sentence, again. What he wrote is :

"Oh, and the Russian girl won the gold. Connect the dots and you can see why there are more than a few conspiracy theorists having a blast at the moment."

-> Schrager doesn't have much stock in these theories as you claim ? This is, at least, reporting the situation of controversies.

• Do not interpret this like Schrager is supporting the result. He is, at least, not supporting the results, but wanted to report that the competition is as controversial as any figure skating events before becaused of the judging system. That is why this article must go under the controversies section head.

• Michelle Kwan's comment is just a small part of Schrager's report and will be removed since everthing is in the article.

Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, "hands down" means "easily; unquestionably" 1, "without much effort; without question" 2. There is no "two-sided meaning" of hands down. Kwan acknowledges that with the scoring system, racking up points is important, and in her opinion Sotnikova racked up the point "hands down"/"easily"/"unquestionably". You don't get to remove Michelle Kwan's comment just because you don't like it.

Schrager article is cynical. It's also sarcastic and it's making fun of this entire controversy. You can keep it if you want, even though in opinion it doesn't add to the article. However, I still reserve the right to edit what you take from the article, just like I reserve the right to edit everything on this wiki page. Kirin13 (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"hosting country"

On going debate if third line of article summary should read "Adelina Sotnikova of Russia won the gold medal" or "Adelina Sotnikova from the hosting country won the gold medal."

My opinion:

• "of Russia" is more clear & to the point
• "hosting country" is irrelevant and unimportant
• "hosting country" may give an implication -> bias
  • more so because the next sentence talks about the controversy in the scoring

Heritoctavus, however, completely disagrees with me and believes that "hosting country" has to be absolutely included. (I am basing Heritoctavus's view on his/her comments on talk page above and edit summaries on article, as well as, the number of times s/he's added "hosting country" to article).

As far as I've understood Heritoctavus's argument for inclusion is:

• "of Russia" is repetitive
• "hosting country" is not against any rules
• s/he likes "hosting country" better

I've already replied, but I'll expand on my answers:

• "of Russia" is not repetitive, this is the first time Adelina Sotnikova is listed to be from Russia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - the goal is state facts as clearly as possible.
• I'm not so sure. By how insistent Heritoctavus is that Adelina Sotnikova be listed as "from the hosting country" instead of "of Russia", makes me suspect this is to create bias. Thus against WP:NPOV.
• irrelevant

So from what I gather:

• neither of us thinks "of Russia" creates any bias
• one of us thinks "from the hosting country" can create bias

So, we can either pick the one both us agree is neutral or we can continue arguing. Kirin13 (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This is my response :

• It is your opinion that "hosting country" may give an implication -> bias

You did not justify it why it is biased.

• Thus, you failed to explain why the expression "hosting country" MUST BE REMOVED.
• Do not give your opinion, but objective reason ( any rule or law or newspaper or reference etc )
• If there is no reason it MUST BE AVOIDED, I will use the expression "Russia, the hosting country" simply because "Russia was the hosting country"!

For this reason, I will revert it. Heritoctavus (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you want it so badly? Because you want to indicate that she only won because she's from the host country? Next sentence talks about controversies as well. The implication is there & thus bias. To make statement more neutral, removing "hosting country". There is no reason to list "hosting country", that fact you keep insisting tells me there is something off with that statement. Kirin13 (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you want to remove it so desperately? I explained the same thing over again many times. You say "Because you want to indicate that she only won because she's from the host country?". In which part of the word "Russia, the hosting country" am I implying this? I explained the same thing over again many times. "the hosting country" does not deviate from neutral expression. Period.

Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Also note that, from the first I have kept using both words together. "Russia, the hosting country". I wanted to use only "the hosting country" but added "Russia" because of you not because I wanted it. So, "Russia, the hosting country" is fair to both us.

Objection?

Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not about being 'fair' to both of us - it's about being fair & neutral toward the article. "Hosting country" is not needed, but you're refusing for those words not to be on the page. That's why I'm unsure of your motives. Kirin13 (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of content

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles, you may be blocked from editing. public's opinion

I clearly warned you above that sectional blanking of [public's opinion] is vandalism. You did it again even though I said "Only remove what you want to do" which means you can remove a sentence or reference, and did not mean removal of the whole section. This is definite vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 04:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeated for the 5th time, since you haven't been paying attention, it is not section blanking. Three of the items were moved into criticism section, the other 2 removed - as discussed on this page. What you are doing is tendentious editing and violating Wikipedia's civility policy. Kirin13 (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

How many times more than 5 times do I need to tell you that this section is a separate section as I created as it is. Do not illegitimately move them. And prove why keeping my original intention is violation of tendentious editing and violating Wikipedia's civility policy

I REPEAT, PROVE IT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 05:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

When I created a new section, you called it vandalism. When you create a new section and I merge it (because both sections were criticism), you call it vandalism. You can't have it both ways Heritoctavus, especially since neither was vandalism. I justified creating when I created a new section. I justified when I merged the two sections. You can't forbid other user's from editing this article - including anything you add. Kirin13 (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I said above "USA Today's report about the judging panel must be back under criticism. You created another section and arbitrarily moved my sentence against my warning, which constitutes vandalism." I meant --> arbitrarily moved my sentence against my warning

Please , always read the sentence from the beginning to the end and try to understand the meaning of the sentence AS A WHOLE.

Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You can edit the contents in the section. And I can also edit it. BUT DO NOT BLANK THE WHOLE SECTION !!! I SAY 6TH TIME !! I know you don't like it but do not blank the whole section only because you don't like it.

Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me repeat: you cannot tell others that they are not allowed to edit 'your' work, so you might as well stop warning people to not touch 'your' work.

As it's been explained to you multiple times, when I created a new section, I put the justification. It was that I was separating the controversies into two parts, the judging (where a complaint exists) and scoring (where the matter is closed by KOC's own admission). The move of 'your' sentence was not arbitrarily because it was about judging, not scoring. (By the way, you have no ownership of any sentence on any Wikipedia article.) You did not bother considering any of this, instead you immediately reverted my work and inaccurately called it vandalism.

And for the 7th time, the section was not blanked. I removed two of the points (the two points that you have not defended inclusion on [see above], yer you keep reinserting them for some reason). The other three points were clear criticism of the results, so I moved them into the criticism section. Moving content is not deleting content. Section blanking is when you delete the content of an entire section. Instead of discussing why you believe there should be a second criticism section, you keep reverting my work and falsely calling it section blanking and vandalism.

First of all, none of this is vandalism. Second of all, stop having a double standard. If creating a new section is vandalism (which it isn't), then the second criticism section you so adamantly defending is vandalism. Kirin13 (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Edited section title to reflect reality. From "Vandalism warning : sectional blanking by Kirin13" to "False allegations made by Heritoctavus". This is based on the fact Heritoctavus falsely accusing me of vandalism and section blanking. Kirin13 (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've changed it to the completely neutral "Removal of content". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Journalists --> USA Today

Please, write like "USA Today" instead of "Journalists". Clarify the source. Objection ? Heritoctavus (talk)

Source is unimportant in this case. There were a lot of journalist who commented on this. Unless this comment is only seen in one specific source, citation should be left within ref tags. Kirin13 (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

HA HA HA HA , I can't believe... You are an experienced writer, right? WHO SAYS THE SOURCE OF THE NEWS IS UNIMPORTANT? WHO SAID THAT? It's possible if you make an aggregate description. But, "USA Today" stands out and the name must show up. Do not be too subjective.... I'm more and more disappointed in you, the experienced writer.

Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The source is important, that's why we cite all claims using the ref tags. However, majority of the time, there is no reason for the article text to explicitly name a newspaper. Any experienced reader of Wikipedia (or academic journals), knows to look at the citation to find the source. Kirin13 (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason not to explicitly describe the name of the newspaper. This is for any non-experienced reader. Since when Wikipedia is only for the experienced reader, ha?

Heritoctavus (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Inexperienced user sees blue superscript [1] hyperlink & decides to see what that is. At that point, inexperienced user realizes that this is the citation. Thus, explicitly saying newspaper doesn't add anything to page. Kirin13 (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Michelle Kwan's comment

Michelle Kwan's comment is a small part of Schrager's report. And you think it is support for the results and I think it is just surrender and acceptance 'hands down'. So, it is arguable and the report has been moved to head of Controversies section. Add your opinion below. Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, "hands down" means "easily; unquestionably" 1, "without much effort; without question" 2. There is no "two-sided meaning" of hands down. Kwan acknowledges that with the scoring system, racking up points is important, and in her opinion Sotnikova racked up the point "hands down"/"easily"/"unquestionably". She gave her support for result being the correct one. You don't get to remove Michelle Kwan's comment just because you don't like it. Also, it doesn't matter how "small part of Schrager's report". I'm not saying Schrager's report is about Kwan's comment. I only stating Kwan said what she said. Kirin13 (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Also sorry about this. You do not agree! What Kwan implied. Only Kwan knows that. So, you agree that we do not agree. The report is titled "Judging controversy no surprise in figure skating". The main subject is not Kwan's interview. You agree!

Conclusion : it should be placed in the head of controversies section with the original description of "Fox sports Peter Schrager pointed out that the judging controversy in figure skating has long history and Sochi figure skating events is not any different. "

And, Wait a minute! Do you know the long time friendship between Michelle Kwan and Yuna Kim? Well.....what do you know about their relationship? What do you know?

I just ... don't know what to say about the way you interpret news article so subjectively....

Kwan's position was nearly the same as that of Yuna. Did Yuna supported the result OR just accepted it? Could you just find a news article in which Kwan clearly states her support for the results? (not just accepting)

Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Fox article: you're getting a bit ahead of yourself. We weren't even discussing what should/shouldn't be said about it in this section. The only thing I said about the Fox article is that it is not about Kwan's comment.

Kwan comment: Stop trying to get something out of Kwan's comment that isn't there. I've given you two sources for my definitions of "hand down". You keep reiterating that there is a secret definition that the dictionaries aren't telling. Are you confusing "hands down" with you put your hand up when you surrender (an argument or to the police)? Kwan's comment stated, "Under the scoring system, hands down, Adelina won." This is equivalent of saying "Under the scoring system, without question, Adelina won." There is no secret meaning. Kirin13 (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point. This may be tenth time that I request you to read the sentence completely. What I said is Kwan's comment is not 'SUPPORT' but the 'ACCEPTANCE'. It must not be in [support of results] section.

That was one of the reason I created another section [Expert's views]. This should go under this section together with Katarina Witt and other's. That will be less arguable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 19:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Kwan's comment says that Sotnikova won without question. That awfully sounds like she is supportive of the results. Kirin13 (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I want to continue the discussion here, limitlessly

Just information. I just do not know all the policy or functions in wikipedia. But, one thing is sure ; not everybody who has good opinions are good at writing in wikipedia. You got the right person who just started writing after long years of reading only, who has smelled high degree of distortions in some articles and, who rarely gives up once got started.

Heritoctavus (talk)

New York Times

It is removed because it adds nothing. It just repeats the same competition results and only includes technical assessments. Opinion? Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A technical assessment is hardly nothing. And this edit is full of problems - commentary, obscure polls, webforum content... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

1. A technical assessment by NYT is hardly something. It adds nothing new but repetition of the official results. So, unnecessary. 2.Give objective, verifiable reasons why polls of ESPN and Yougov are obscure. Prove why they have problems with objective reasons including wikipedia rules, references, news articles etc. 3. Look NeilN, I appreciate your twinkle twinkle little star but keep objectivity. Heritoctavus (talk)

1) This gives details not found in the article. 2) 24,000 participants in an unscientific online poll is hardly noteworthy. And please keep your commentary out of the article. 3) Judging from your talk page, I'm not the one with editing issues. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Concur with NeilN. Heritoctavus this is the third time you are arguing to delete this paragraph. The last two times you agreed to keep it. Why do you keep bringing it up? As, previously told, it add technical assessment that is not found elsewhere on this page. Having the scores listed is not the same as providing a technical assessment. Kirin13 (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Kirin13, First, this was the revert of the unjustified removal by tiwinkle twinkle NeilN. Second, I agreed to keep NYT on the condition that you will not remove my sentences repeatedly. I warned that "It is up to you if you post NYT again or not. But, do not delete my news!!" You ignored this warning more than three times. Removal of NYT is my reaction to this. You delete my news, I delete yours. FAIR. Heritoctavus (talk)

No, that's WP:DISRUPT. Continue this way and I don't think you'll last long here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Heritoctavus, I'm pretty sure I've already told you, but you cannot tell others that they are not allowed to edit 'your' work. Wikipedia does not belong to you. Kirin13 (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Public's opinions

The petition in change.org , poll results , topics on SNS, Twitter , discussion threads in public site should be described in a separate section. Neither in criticism nor in support of the result. Just [public's opinion]. Any other opinions by anybody including the busybuddy C.Fred and twinkle twinkle little star NeilN ?

Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You have now broken WP:3RR despite the warning on your talk page. Add the same content again without consensus and I will report you. Forum opinions and unscientific polls have no place in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This page is for consensus! What do you mean by 'without consensus'? And why are the polls unscientific? Give reasons. Furthermore, you have committed sectional blanking of [Public's opinions] twice from yesterday which will result in Vandalism

Heritoctavus (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

First off, stop criticizing other editiors, secondly polls are not considered reliable sources and are generally not accepted by editors. They are unspecific and not encyclopedic, and like C.Fred and NeilN said and has no place on an article. TheMesquito (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Especially uncontrolled online polls. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Differences between press debates on official controversies/scandals and press debates on unofficial controversies/scandals

It has been over two weeks since a news report contesting that a report from the Korean Olympics Committee was forthcoming, and the report has not materialized. Further, the president of the ISU has gone on record as stating that no such report has been received by the ISU. A previous editor on wikipedia has given the Korean Committee the benefit of the doubt for the amount of time for filing the report for over two weeks now. There is a palpable difference between press debates of Official controversies and press debates of unofficial controversies. Without a citation, and preferably a Url, indicating that an official report or protest has been filed by Korea, then Wikipedia generally does not offer official status to press debates about unofficial reports (undue weight). The unsupported and unofficial material should be deleted from the wikipage unless a citation can be provided by a certain date and time that the Korean report has been received and acknowledged in order to be official. Otherwise it should be deleted as unsupported after over 2 weeks. FelixRosch (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

First, I think it's premature to say there is no complaint. From my understanding, the KOC has 60 days, which means until April 21st, to file the complaint. Also, last time it was confirmed that no complaint was filed was March 26th. The news that the KOC intends to file a complaint was well documented by multiple reliable sources (and these weren't rumors, these were statements from KOC/KSU and Kim's agency). I'd rather not delete information regarding the complaint until either the KOC acknowledges they will not file a complaint or the ISU confirms no complaint was received after the deadline.

There is a significant difference between a debate between public, journalists, and experts in the field vs. an official complaint or protest being filed; however, in both cases the word 'controversy' applies. To my knowledge there is no such thing as an 'official' vs 'unofficial' controversy. From wikitionary, a controversy is "a debate, discussion of opposing opinions," which I think this debate falls right into. I also don't think Wikipedia makes an decision on whether a debate has 'official' status or not. There is such a thing as official complaint and official protest of results, but you can have a controversy without that.

At this time, I think we should keep article as is. Kirin13 (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

On your two issues, first, if you are saying "60-days", then this is better than leaving it as indefinite for months and months. Also, if you apply the 60-days period then it is normally applied from the date of the event competition of 20Feb and the date by your calculation would be 20April for either confirmation or deletion as unconfirmed. On your second issue, the question of an Official controversy/scandal is well-established and you did not have to research wikipedia policy to find it. The 2002 Winter Olympics with the Sale Pairs controversy/scandal was one example which you can look up where the controversy/scandal was Officially recognized, and the press had many diverse opinions. You may study the formal written protests made at that time to see why it was an Official controversy/scandal. If you are agreed that 60-days is an acceptable period to give the KOC the "reasonable doubt time" for sending their report, then the 20April date is fine here for you or anyone else to do the edit changes/deletions. FelixRosch (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

20 February 2014 plus sixty days is 21 April (1 day is 21 February, 9 days is 1 March, 40 days is 1 April). Even after 'deadline', I prefer giving a week or so before deleting anything as 'outdated'. As this case showed, it took six days between complaint being filed before news broke out.

As far as controversy being official, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with the 2002 scandal. Looking at the Wikipedia article, no where do I see anything stating that this scandal was official, because there is no such thing as official scandal/controversy. There can be official protests, complaints, and results; not scandals or controversies. Kirin13 (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

To Kirin13; Dispute letter is now officially acknowledged (though it took much longer than 2002 scandal), as you have now updated the page with this news report. All must now await ISU decision on next step. Regarding your efforts with disruptive editor at the gold medal winner page, let me know if you have this addressed. Also, you may want to look at User:Mich contrib page for Sotnikova and Lipnitsk for all the deletion/revisions which you may have missed leading up to 1 May 2014. FelixRosch (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to Morrichelle's edits, then I did see them. In general, looking at other international/elite level skaters, only medals at major international competitions are included in the medaltemplate within infobox. National tournaments are not included. Looking at athletes in other sports, this also holds. However, the medal count table should be combined, which I re-did here. Is this what you are referring to or something else? (btw, it's helpful when you write out full username, so I don't have to guess who you're referring to.) Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

To Kirin13; The dates for the filing and assignment to the Court of Arbitration are now well past expiration. See details of dates in this article http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/topic/2014/04/16/20/1301000000AEN20140416004000315F.HTML

Since far more than three weeks have now passed since the complaint of 10April it would seem remiss to continue leaving this as an open issue indefinitely. There is no indication that the terms for a Court of Arbitration have been met and no news that ISU has found the complaint to warrant further attention. At some point, the wording here and on Sotnikova should indicate that the dates have all expired. FelixRosch (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The complaint was filed on time. The link you provided only states: "it must be decided in the next three weeks whether the ISU or the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) will be responsible for handling the case, and the result will only be determined afterward." The "three weeks" are to decide who handles the complaint, not a deadline to determine results. So complaint hasn't "expired". As far as Sotnikova page, I don't see anything wrong there. Kirin13 (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

To Kirin13; Yes, you are reading the correct material. The point is that the ISU appears to have decided that the materials presented were insufficient for assignment to the Court of Arbitration, with no announcement of anything further to be done after the 21 day period ("three weeks"). Do you still want to leave the current wikipage here as stating that this matter is still being disputed? It seems at some point it needs to be recognized as undisputed since the 21 day period has now lapsed without the Court of Arbitration being assigned or requested by the ISU? FelixRosch (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

First, do you have evidence that three weeks was an actual deadline and not just a spoken statement? Second, do you have evidence that CAS is not handling the case? Third, do you have evidence that ISU has dismissed the case? All I see is evidence that official complaint has been filed. I see no evidence to say it's dismissed. It's not unusual for such cases to be handled behind closed doors. It's also not unusual for such cases to take a few months. As far as the wiki actual - I don't see a way you can say the matter is closed when there is no evidence to support such an assertion. Kirin13 (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure entirely if you are suggesting that several more months (3 mo, 6mo, 12mo?) is a reasonable time frame for this. Closed door discussions are possible though why are you assuming this. My comment was that the 21-days have lapsed. The fact that this time period has lapsed without a Court being announced is evidence that it has lapsed without the Court being announced within the required time frame. Usually, the failure the assign such a complaint for further review means that it has not met the criteria for the Court to be assigned. What criteria are you setting for this to be assessed and recorded by Wikipedia as an undisputed Gold medal? The end of June will make it 4 full months since the event. FelixRosch (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Where do you see it saying the gold medal is disputed? What edit are you wanting to make? There is no evidence the complaint has been dismissed. Current state of article is fine until there is further reporting. If there is no further reporting on issue, then let it be. If you really must, I will not object to line similar to "as of 3 June 2014, nothing further has been reported" (even though I think it's unnecessary and difficult to fully verify (since it's easier to prove something exists than to prove it doesn't)). Kirin13 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

To Kirin13: Time out, and back up one iteration. Your question was "Where do you see it saying the gold medal is disputed?" This appears at the end of the 'Official Responses' subsection on this Page which is stated as inferring that there is still an outstanding and unresolved Complaint against the medal. Among the editors from two months ago, the thought was that if the Official Response could be finalized, then it would be possible to abridge/archive the lengthy pro-and-contra subsections which are still there. If you see this as a non-issue then i imagine you could leave it as is for now, even after 4 months. At some point in time, if not now, it shall look awkward to keep stating that there are still outstanding and unresolved complaints about this gold medal which was awarded several months ago. FelixRosch (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Read the paragraph again: "However, a Korean Olympic Committee spokesman disclosed that Kim Yuna's scores will not be challenged and that the competition's results cannot be overturned." That sounds to be like the medals are not being disputed.
The debate can, but doesn't need to, be abridged. Considering the media coverage, weight is due. Unless you have proof that complaint is resolved or dismissed - let it be. Wikipedia states the facts of the matter. (e.g. Fact: A complaint was filed.) Wikipedia does not permit original research - and your speculation that the complaint must have been dismissed is just that. Back in April, you had similar speculations that proved false. There is no deadline. Kirin13 (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

To Kirin13: If you are stating that the Korean Complaint was filed and that is only a general complaint which does not in any way affect the gold medal for the Ladies singles, then I do not believe the comment really belongs on this Page about the Ladies singles. This was my belief two months ago and continues to be the case now. If you seriously have just said that you understand that the Korean Complaint was not dealing with the gold medal but only with general skating "Policies and procedures" then it belongs elsewhere, perhaps on the ISU page. I shall presently make an edit to reflect this partially and to remove some redlinks I noticed, but if you just said the Korean complaint was a general skating complaint and not impugning the Ladies singles gold medal, then it should not be placed here. This is the main point that I meant to emphasize two months ago and which I continue to support here, and which you appear to now state is true and not speculative. If the Complaint is not directly related to the Ladies singles results, then it does not belong on the Ladies singles Page. If you wish to keep the pro-and-contra sections, all of that is fine as part of the history of the outcome and aftermath. P.s. My appreciation for your well-intentioned comment from last week on the other unrelated matter. FelixRosch (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't get ahead of yourself. The complaint is in direct reaction to this competition. Also, based on news articles, the complaint named judges at this specific ladies' event that KOC found issue with. Kirin13 (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

To Kirin13; Not getting ahead of myself. Your comment just stated above that the Complaint was not intended to affect the outcome of the competition or the award of the Gold medal in any way. If you are now switching back and saying that there is a cloud still hanging over the award of the Gold medal, then clarify it here. You have now presented both versions, and clearly it must be the one or the other. Please clarify. Is there (a) still of cloud over the Gold medal award because of the Complaint, or, (b) is there no cloud over the Gold medal caused by the Complaint, which merely cites examples of the general type of things the ISU should safeguard against in the future (judges histories, judges conduct, etc.)? (I can quote you as saying the one and the other if needed, since you appear to have stated both positions directly above.) Is it (a) or (b)? FelixRosch (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I've only presented one side: a compliant has been filed in direct reaction to this competition, but it has been acknowledged that the complaint will not affect the results of this competition. It belongs on this page since it's in direct result of this competition (otherwise there wouldn't be a 60 day deadline for it to filed) and because contents of the complaint, according to news reporting, directly talk about this event. Kirin13 (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

To Kirin13: In that case you are stating that it is definitively (a), and not (b). This means that the wording remains ambiguous and not neutral in the last sentence of the Official response section. There is no cloud hovering over the medals as awarded. The wording as it is does not work or make the point which you just made, which was that the Complaint is only in reference to the skating event and that it does not challenge any of the medal results in any way. That's all ok, and should be reflected by re-editing the specific words used: "...the Korean Skating Union filed a complaint on 10 April concerning the judging of this event..."

My suggestion is that the edit is made unambiguous and neutral (and not your "I've only presented one side") by the wording used in my edit yesterday, or, if you prefer an alternate form, "...the KSU filed a complaint in reference to the events of the judges' background and conduct during the Ladies singles competition for separate evaluation from the Medal awards made in this competition which were not contested...". Either one of these alternatives works, and you can apply whichever you prefer, or suggest your option, since the current version is ambiguous and not neutral. FelixRosch (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're arguing.

• I've never said (a).
• Complaint is not just in reference, it is a direct reaction.
• No idea where you're getting my "other side" or what my "other side" even says, since I've only presented one side.
• Current version clearly states "Kim Yuna's scores will not be challenged and that the competition's results cannot be overturned". I don't see how that isn't clear.
• No idea how current version isn't neutral. It presents the facts - official complaint has been filed in direct reaction to competition but medals/results will not be changed.

You're welcome to get a 3rd opinion. Kirin13 (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

To Kirin13: Then you are stating you are fully for position (b), and that there is no cloud over the Medal. The current wording of the closing sentence is worded so as to suggest that if the present review of the Complaint ends up stating that the judges misbehaved then the medal awards can be challenged. I do not believe that is the case, and it would appear that only a slight change to the wording in that last sentence could easily clarify this. I have presented two alternatives, can you present one? Its not as is I have not accepted things you have edited in the past, in fact its much the opposite. FelixRosch (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Why should two sentence in a row say the same thing? Kirin13 (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

To Kirin13: In fact, I will take you up on your offer from 3June: 'I will not object to line similar to "as of 3 June 2014, nothing further has been reported"' as you put it. If you could word it to mention that this will not affect the medals or that it will potentially affect only future judging practices then so much the better. Either way, you can post it as you wrote it or expand it and I can look at it after you post it. FelixRosch (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

For me to do so requires me to confirm that "nothing further has been reported". Running a quick Google News search tells me that this statement is false. I've updated the wiki article to reflect latest developments. Kirin13 (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

To Kirin13: All of those new cites from yesterday must have been unknown to you during the discussion above. All of your new cites are verified and my Support for your edits made yesterday. Cheers. FelixRosch (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

All the news must have been unknown to you since you've been arguing nothings happened. Also, this is second time you've argued that nothing will happen when I've argued to wait. Kirin13 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

To Kirin13: This is the third time that you are leaving this subsection on a "down note", as if there is a cloud still hovering over the medal. On the basis of several other news reports which you apparently overlooked, this matter is really considered closed, and I am adding the point of view of the ISU as well, which currently has no complaints before it at this time. You have previously only been giving the Korean version of the event with NPOV issues raised. The current edit presents the ISU viewpoint in order to ensure NPOV. See these, among others:

Skating officials say no bias by Russian judge in Sochi

USA TODAY-Jun 4, 2014

Olympic figure skating judging complaints rejected by ISU

NBCSports.com-Jun 5, 2014

Russia's Adelina Sotnikova Legitimate Winner of Sochi Olympics ...

The Moscow Times-Jun 5, 2014

Russia's figure skater Sotnikova's case finally closed

International-The Voice of Russia-Jun 5, 2014

NPOV is very important in these issues. FelixRosch (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch: Not a single one of the four ref's you created was complete. None of them include a url, authors, etc. Please edit and use {{Cite news}} template.
As far as your accusations of bias, then thank you for insults. Considering I added ISU responses to both complaints, I don't see how I ignored ISU's viewpoint. As far as ISU having no complaints while KSU/KOC comptemplating an appeal - well that's obvious since all the news articles are from the SAME DAY. Kirin13 (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch: For your information 2/4 of the articles you claim I "overlooked" are two of the articles I cited. NBC Sports article is the one cited. The Moscow Times article is the Reuters article I cited. You seem to have overlooked that. Kirin13 (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

To Kirin13: Nothing overlooked here, and your harsher comments on the Edit history page appear to confuse the messages with the messenger. If you don't like the messages (all of which have urls which you have apparently already found after your harsher message), then don't take it out on the messenger. If you will recall, I am the one the that sided with your edits against User:Heri, and also against User:SirE; you must have at least an inkling by now that the references I provided to you in the past such as the 2002 Sale Controversy?Scandal have been of use.

Your last edit, after you spent an hour re-editing the useful cites I had provided, has placed out of sequence the "30-minute" time frame you quote at the end of the paragraph, rather than the start of the paragraph where it belongs; that is, at the time of the Olympics and not the time of the complaints. I shall correct the chronology in the narrative of the subsection to clarify this. Also, this will make explicit the Secondary nature of the subsequent KOC complaints which were unrelated to the medal awards for the "Ladies singles". You previously acknowledged this by stating that you knew that these secondary complaints were unrelated to the actual medal awards but that you wanted to keep them there because they were possibly related to the judges involved in the event. Given the long delay in filing by the KOC and the rapid refusal of the ISU to apply them, this makes the matter of the Complaints very secondary. As a courtesy to your previous edits, I am retaining them here in a subsection separated from the medal award results, but you should seriously reconsider the weight that you are giving to recording these KOC Complaints on Wikipedia which were dismissed and which are Not related to the award of the medals for the "2014 Ladies singles" which is the real topic of this Wikipage. FelixRosch (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

1) To be clear FelixRosch: I owe you nothing. I side with material within edits not with editors. (btw: 2002 Sale Controversy?Scandal - what?) 2) It is not my job to clean-up after you. When you add material, add proper sourcing, and that includes the urls. It's not my job to search the web for what I think is the article you were referring to and clean-up your citations. 3) You accuse me of overlooking things, being non-NPOV, not knowing things, etc. Then you tell me not to confuse the message with the messenger. So if you think I'm being harsh, let me paraphrase your statement: don't blame the messenger if you don't like the message. 4) Useful cites? ... no. Two were ones I already did. The othere two were improper citations of articles that repeated same info. When there is a hundred articles on issue - the goal isn't to cite all of them - the goal is to get the facts and add one or two citations. 5) There is absolutely no Wikipedia requirement stating an Olympic event article can only include info on the medals. The complaints are regarding this event - it doesn't matter if they can overturn medals or not - thus they are on "the real topic of this Wikipage." Your courtesy is not required. Material belongs on the page because it does, not because you like the editor who put it there. Kirin13 (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

To Kirin13: Same as the title of this subsection, that was a reference to the 2002 Sale Controversy/Scandal (you appear to be deeply upset about the mistype of the "/" which is on the same key as the mis-typed character.) I used the 2002 Scandal to explain what an Official controversy was as opposed to an unofficial one. Your comment about "owing" something is odd also, since wikipedia is largely based upon contributions of material. What is your concern about "owing" anything to anybody. These are edit contributions. FelixRosch (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

1) I'm not concerned with "?" - I have no idea why you're bringing up Salé. You claim that "references I provided to you in the past such as the 2002 Sale Controversy?Scandal have been of use". What references? What use to me? It was an argument over "unofficial" or not and you're Salé example was irrelevant then. 2) Your statement that you sided with me on such-or-such issue means nothing. I don't care if you sided with me or not - I don't owe you anything for siding with me. So why do you continually bring it up. Kirin13 (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Opinions sections

There has been a question (brought up most recently by Sir Edgar) of which opinions should be included in response section.

Several users have removed the entire "Supporting opinions" section in the last few months. The most recent three occurrences were in April by Rachmaninoff3 on April 27 and further back Sir Edgar on April 9 and April 5. I believe this is section blanking of one side's opinion while keeping the other sides "Opposing opinions" section and against WP:NPOV policy.

In the last two days Sir Edgar has argued the removal of most former figure skater opinions who support the results (in one edit summary stating "Irrelevant opinions"). This occurred on three edits: 1, 2, 3. Ignoring the disruptive comments in the first and second diff, I think it's more important to discuss which opinions should be included. I believe it goes against WP:NPOV to remove opinions by former figure skaters in one section, "Supporting opinions", but leave opinions by former figure skaters in opposing section, "Opposing opinions". Both sets of opinions are by experts in the field, but a question can be raised if they are encyclopedic. My belief is that if they are included for one section, then they should be included in the other. To expand beyond the bottom paragraphs of the two sections in questions, the second paragraph of "Opposing opinions" uses opinions of Sonia Garbato and Tim Gerber, neither of whom have been judges/officials under the new ISU Judging System, so I question if their opinions should be weighed more heavily then that of journalists or former international figure skaters.

Sir Edgar has also challenged the inclusion of opinions from two specific former skaters. He removed Johnny Weir statement three times (1, 2, 3), giving the reason "He is a bronze medalist. Why not get 4th place to comment, too?" in the edit summary. As I explained to him after the first time "there is no requirement to be gold medalist (btw 3/5 opinions opposing results are by non-Olympic champions...)". Though I believe there is zero requirement to be an Olympic champion in order to have an expert opinion, if such a requirement was set, then 3 out of the 5 opinions opposing results should also be removed.

The other opinion recently challenged is that of Alexei Mishin. Sir Edgar has removed it four times (1, 2, 3, 4) claiming it is biased and not objective. As I've stated in first revert, "he's never worked with Sotnikova nor have any connection with her; nationality alone is not reason to reject his opinion". My statement has not received any reply.

Users who've undid the above removals include: NeilN, C.Fred, and me (Kirin13).

I've stated my thoughts above - Sir Edgar & everyone else, comments/thoughts/opinions welcome. Kirin13 (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Katarina Witt opinion

There was a recent edit on Katarina Witt opinion statement, which I think significant changed how her opinion would be interpreted by a reader. Previously the statement made Witt's opinion state the results were completely wrong vs. edit makes it seem like her opinion is that there were issues with the judging but the results are what they are. So I tried to look at the source - which turned out to be a German video that's only viewable in Germany. Per WP:RSUE this is definitely a poor source choice since there were plenty of English sources (viewable in English speaking countries) available. It also made me question the quote - if the quote was not in English (and since I'm not in Germany, I could not view video to hear which language it's in), then quote is a translation. The original quote is not properly documented and translation is subject to interpretation (especially if done by machine translator or Wiki editor). I found a similarly titled video available to those who live in Canada - but since I don't, I don't know what's in it (nor do I know if it's the same as the German video). Since I'm not having much success on these videos, I'll try to find an English language news article with Witt's opinion. Given success, I'm going to edit the statement and replace the source by an English one. Kirin13 (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Michelle Kwan opinion

I've removed info regarding Kwan's opinion twice in last 24 hours, so I wanted to explain why. First time, I removed statement from Kim Yuna's agent saying that Kwan was upset with the result. Kim's agent is not in any way a neutral source. If he wanted to make statement on Kim's emotions, then that's okay since he's Kim's representative. However, I don't think an encyclopedia should be using Kim's agent to 'official' state Kwan's emotions since he's in no shape or form her representative. In both cases though, I would rather hear statement directly from the individual instead of an agent.

Machidanglor made a good faith addition from a valid video source. However I reverted this edit because I felt it didn't add substance to this Wikipedia article. The a statement included advice Kwan gave Kim before competition, which doesn't belong here (unnecessary detail unrelated to issue at hand). It also added Kwan's statement that she was surprised by the results. However, it wasn't indicated whether it was a "results are completely wrong" surprise vs. "results are okay but I didn't see that coming" surprise. In a section where we're trying to give the opinions of opposing sides, this is like including a non-opinion. In addition, I feel it's giving Kwan undue weight. This paragraph has opinions of six former figure skaters, but including all this info makes half the paragraph about Kwan while the other skaters average 1/10 of the paragraph.

Kirin13 (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Order within 'Responses' section

To Kirin13: You gave no reason given on Talk for your edit. My edit earlier today was to undo your edit from last month putting sections out of chronological sequence. Discuss before edit and prior to posting the sections out of chronological sequence. You are placing opinions collected from March 2014 before the ISU official statement from the time of the event in February for no given reason. Separately, you previous comment is likely the case: You owe nothing to anyone at Wikepedia, and Wikipedia does not owe you anything. I do not understand why this keeps being an issue for you. For now, try to explain why you are putting the sections out of chronological sequence before posting your edit. Discuss prior to posting. FelixRosch (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Back in March, FelixRosch argued that the order must be official responses, supporting opinions, and then opposing opinions. In June he made a bold edit to separate the official responses section into two sections and an undiscussed edit move one to the bottom. Instead of a revert, I decided to compromise and leave the separation but have the two official sections together. Since FelixRosch seemed to now prefer the bottom, I moved the first section there. This was unquestioned for a month until today, when FelixRosch declared that he wants one section on top and the other on the bottom because that's how it is 'chronologically' (even though in March he argued official should be first regardless chronology of events). However this argument has a few holes, since chronologically the order is opposing opinions, supporting opinions, and finally official responses. As I said in March, I don't care what order the three sections are in and as I said in June, I just believe the one/two official response(s) section(s) should be together. Kirin13 (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC), edited 21:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Per FelixRosch above, he now wants info in chronological order. Since most of the opinions happened before ISU response, that means opinions sections go before official response sections. Kirin13 (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess if you want 'pure' chronology – we should split reactions/opinions, ISU response, analysis (2nd paragraph of opposing opinions), then complaints. I would accept this order also. Kirin13 (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

To Kirin13: The two issues are not the same, and you state that they are not the same when you indicate your knowledge of the 30-minute rule and that the window was closed for the complaint. The other complaint was filed only in April and your adding it to the same section makes it looks, awkwardly, as a continuation of the same complaint. It cannot be both the closing of the window at thirty minutes, and then its sudden continuation in April after it was closed in February. The events are separate chronologically and should be separated as being on the one hand before the supporting and opposing opinions were collected, and the separate April complaint coming after the opinions were collected. Chronological sequence should be kept. Second, you appear to jumping to the Ukraine page immediately after each edit you make on this page and deleting a valid URL. The Red Cross came to its decision after reviewing the mortality statistics which occurred before the downing of the aircraft together with the statistics for the downed aircraft. You have left the supporting statistics for the Red Cross decision for declaring a state of Civil War as undocumented by your deletion. Both the before and after statistics document why the Red Cross reached its conclusion to declare a state of Civil War. If this was unintentional, then you should return the URL in support of the reason for the Red Cross reaching its conclusion that there is a Civil War in Ukraine. FelixRosch (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Second, if you want to discuss how a url for 3 June 2014 article has information on July 2014 events, (specifically sourcing this sentence "Following the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014 by military missiles and the ensuing circumstances, the Red Cross considered the Ukraine to be in a state of civil war.") then do so on the Ukraine talk page, not here.

Now back to this article: The official responses has never been limited to 30-minute window. There are different types of complaints and each have their window. The complaints KOC/KSU filed are just as allowable official response and no reason for separate header. By your arguments of them being different issues, then the opinions sections should be separated based on if it's opinions on judges or skating making six sections. Then we might as well separate by other factors, like who the opinions was from, and make twenty sections. Your argument "makes it looks, awkwardly, as a continuation of the same complaint" is very awkward since there was no complaint in previous paragraph. Btw: paragraphs tell reader there is a break, as do dates, so the reader can tell what is what. It is all official responses, they all belong under that header. Back to your chronology argument, I have no idea what you mean by "opinions collected". The opinions were given and reported before ISU made it's statement, thus chronologically they came first. ISU would have no need to make a statement if those opinions hadn't happened (note, ISU didn't make similar statements after other events – that says it's statement was in direct response to the opinions). If you want things chronologically, then it should be opposing opinions, supporting opinions, and then all the official responses. Kirin13 (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you are using your edits on this Page as a jump point to the Ukraine page then it is appropriate for me to bring it up here. Your using this page as a jump point to remove a URL on mortality statistics used by the Red Cross removes useful information which the Red Cross applied (since you have deleted it twice, you should be the one that restores it). Regarding this Ice Skating Olympics Page, and your statement just made above, the current delineation of sections is perfectly adequate. The initial response of the ISU in February was in reaction to inquiries being made to it directly which according to one report caused them to shut down their internet access link for a while. You can read their report to verify why they wrote it the way they did. Given the outcry after the event, the only thing unusual is that KOC did not file within the thirty minutes and why they did not do it in that time frame (inexperience? lack of proof? etc). Therefore, it was and remains a distinct issue and should appear chronologically separate as explaining why the Gold medal award was not challenged during the Olympics in February. The journalistic debate then ensued for weeks in the press from the time of the event well into March, with many wondering why KOC never filed the official complaint against the Gold award at the time of the event. There is no reason to change the current sections which summarize these pro-and-contra positions since they all came after the 30-minute window. The April complaint, when it finally was filed, was dismissed almost immediately for various reasons which you already know. The February IOC statement was in reference to the 30-minute window issue and the fact that no complaint was filed at that time challenging the Gold. The KOC complaint in April was a separate issue unrelated to the award of the Gold (it concerned judging only) and came well after the press controversy had subsided substantially. The current outline of section is fully adequate to represent this chronology. If you want to add or supplement any of it based on Talk here then let me know here in order to try to keep things constructive. If you need further detail from me on this then let me know what to supplement. FelixRosch (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have never started any discussion regarding Ukraine page here nor will I debate it here. You made the insertion, I removed, then it is your responsibility to bring up edit on appropriate talk page per WP:BRD. I have no intention of restoring it nor will I debate any of your arguments regarding it here.

"the current delineation of sections is perfectly adequate" to you. ISU's statement was a response to widespread media reporting and widespread media contacting ISU. The opinions came first. They were primarily published before ISU's statement. If you insist, we can have 6 sections: pro/con before ISU statement, ISU statement, pro/com after ISU statement, complaints. However, your timeline of events is skewed. If you wish to change how things have been on this page for months, then you need to get consensus. As I said earlier, my leaving it as two sections on the bottom was an attempt to comprise with you. Since you don't care for the comprise, I'll revert to stable version before are disagreement. Either convince me or seek dispute resolution, but don't edit from the stable version until you get consensus. Kirin13 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

To Kirin13: Undid revision 618457555 by Kirin13 (talk) The only agreed upon, Stable version was from June 10th after vast Talk page discussion. For some reason you then returned on your own to invert the sections. Restore sequence to last agreed upon sequence of sections from June10th. For some inexplicable reason you went back and changed it on the 13th to your own self-determined preference without mentioning anything. When I noticed it, I then reverted your solo self-defined edit of 13 June, against the agreement reached on the June 10 version. If you wish to discuss your bold edit of June 13 then do so here prior to posting. The June 10th version was the sequence of sections which was agreed upon, not your own self-determined edit of June 13. Discuss prior to changes. FelixRosch (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I reverted to stable order that was there from February through June. You reverted to your preferred June 10 version which was never discussed nor was it in any form or shape agreed upon. Either pick the stable version as-in order that's been around for months or stable version that was there for over a month until you came in yesterday. Your version is the bold, un-discussed, un-agreed version. Kirin13 (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

To be super clear: it was your bold edit to split section into two and to move one of the new sections to the bottom. I have never agreed to either of these changes. You have refused all my compromises. You have no consensus for your bold edit. It is your responsibility to get consensus if you want your bold edits to stay. Kirin13 (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Reset tabs for access

To Kirin13: You appear intent on re-starting a three page discussion which already took place and which you agreed to on June 10th. If needed, this three page discussion can be repeated again because you had previously agreed to it on June 10. For some reason, you then took it upon yourself to return after three days and to change the edit upon your own isolated self-determination to have your own way. Good faith editing usually means that you abide by your agreement of June 10th, and not return after three days to assert your isolated opinion without informing anyone. I have nonetheless offered a re-write to bridge the gap between your position of June10th and June13th, which you may edit for details to include what you feel is needed.

I ask again that you not use your edits on this page as a springboard to make erroneous edits on other pages such as the one you made on the Ukraine page. The Red Cross use mortality statistics to draw conclusion of assessing a state of Civil War in a region, and your excluding this url (twice) misrepresents the decision process of the Red Cross. Please repair your erroneous deletion of this material.

I have offered a Re-write of the section here on the skating competition to offer a solution for your request to bind the separate official decisions together although they are separated by two months. Otherwise the outline of June 10 is the last and only agreed upon section outline which you had agreed to at that time. My own position is the same as last month and the month before that, namely, that only official matters regarding the Gold medals should be included. The press coverage is too long and should be abridged, though you previously expressed a desire to keep it there at all costs. Possibly you can re-think this with the perspective offered by the new outline of sections. FelixRosch (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

1. I have never agreed on June 10th or any other date. You make an absurd claim that making an edit three days later is bad faith. You took it upon yourself to return after 41 days and start reverting to your preferred version. That must be extreme bad faith then by your definitions.
2. Discuss Ukraine on Ukraine. If you want your URL, go discuss there. Ukraine & Russia are on my watchlist and if I feel like editing those pages, I will.
3. I disagree with your new sections. Writing things like "This section concerns" is not how wiki articles are written. Further the paragraph discusses journalistic opinions which means those sub-sections should be included within that section. Official is official, disagree with your split. "Extended journalistic coverage" happened before the 30-minutes, after 30-minutes & before ISU statement, and after ISU statement – thus your line is misleading.
4. I have reverted to the stable order that is closest to your last edit - this is the February through June 9 order. Kirin13 (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

To Kirin13: Yes, that's correct regarding your inversion of this edit and reversing yourself. You accepted the edit on June 10, and then appeared to "lay low" for 3 days before inserting your own self-defined preference without telling anyone. You also appear to have no knowledge of the difference between an Official Complaint made to the ISU, and Unofficial discussions in the Press, despite my 3 pages of dialogue. You appear to have feigned accepting the distinction on June 10, while apparently planning to reverse it 3 days later without notifying anyone which can not be seen as being in good faith. Third, you appear to not understand that your using my edits on this page as a springboard to reverting my edits on other pages like Ukraine as a distraction of some sort again lacks the appearance of good faith. In spite of this, I then offered another re-write and restructuring of the section outline to help clarify this, and you ignore it. Please confirm if you are still confused about the difference of what a Official controversy recognized by the ISU is in comparison to unofficial controversy and discussions in the Press. They are 2 different things and you appear not to understand despite three pages of dialogue last month. I urge you to not continue edit warring without discussing your edits first, the appearance is that you are ignoring good faith. Be constructive and discuss first before editing. The new outline lets you develop your concern in a responsible manner. FelixRosch (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Phrases like "This section concerns the official ISU responses to the figure skating competition." and "These can be summarized as supporting and opposing opinions." belong in an essay, not an encyclopedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Concur with NeilN. Now back to responding to FelixRosch: You are the one who is trying to make a split from a version that has been agreed from February to 9 June. You are the one who "lay low" for over a month. Furthermore, telling me that I don't understand anything, is not going to help you get consensus. Ukraine is on my watchlist – I make edits to pages on my watchlist regardless of who else edits the page. Also don't bother claiming NeilN is using Ukraine as a springboard. You're not the only user editing both these pages. Kirin13 (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you are both participating, it allows me to state the full matter concerning Wikipedia as an on-line encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a fan-site for the publication of fan pages with private opinions of fans or literati which are unrelated to the decisions of Official institutions charged with regulating Figure Skating, namely, the ISU. There is a significant distinction of what could reasonably be included on this page before the latest decision of the ISU, and what was reasonable after the most recent Official decision. After the event in February, when there was high anticipation of the complaint being filed by KOC immanently, there was a reasonable argument to be made for including the various unofficial opinions, since no one knew what the KOC complaint would include or make use of. Now that the complaint has been filed and ruled upon, it is plainly evident that none of those opinions had any bearing on the latest decision at all. The first Complaint, when it was finally made two months later, by KOC was dismissed outright due to improper format, and the second complaint was also dealt with summarily in being dismissed. None of the unofficial opinions played any role in either the KOC complaints nor the ISU decisions. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia and not a fan-site for a variety of supporters of competing skaters, should no longer include private opinions of fans and literati who have had no effect on the decisions of the ISU and the medal awards. Following the last decision of the ISU, the private opinions which had nothing to do with the rulings should no longer be published by Wikipedia, and should be removed as not relevant to the Medal awards and the subsequent ISU decisions which make no use of them. FelixRosch (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not only about what organizations say or do. It also contains information on notable issues using reliable sources and expert opinions. What you deleted wasn't 'fan' opinions, they were experts in the field. This information was widely published by reliable sources making it notable. I'm reverting your retaliatory section blanking. Also note that your edit is the bold one, so do not re-delete the information without gaining consensus. Kirin13 (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Kirin13. Also, based on your edits to other articles, it seems you have significant difficulty in understanding what is an appropriate scope for an article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140719155325/http://gtcdn.sochi2014.com/contentpage/UlTZY0/FS-o%20Results-Book_Sochi-V1b.pdf to http://gtcdn.sochi2014.com/contentpage/UlTZY0/FS-o%20Results-Book_Sochi-V1b.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)