User:RaqiwasSushi/sandbox

Wikipedia Guidelines


 * Comparison of American and British English
 * Manual of Style (may be same as info in welcome template)

<!-- Info for possible future use.

Entry for CE 11/27/15 disputed FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Current_Events_Editing

(1)*Scientific studies confirm more than 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are retreating, and many of the smaller ones — like the alpine ice sheets of Glacier National Park in the U.S. — are rapidly disappearing. On the other side of world, at Khumbu Glacier near Mount Everest in the Himalayas, expanding ponds are merging and forming larger bodies of water. This could threaten settlements downstream if they overflow. Thawing glaciers account for about 20 percent of the sea-level rise recorded in the past century, adding to the meltwater coming from polar ice caps and ice sheets. (Washington Post) (BBC)

(Was written for talk page comment; 3rd party resolution more appropriate) (2)The first action was 68.231.26.111's removal of an entry I posted on November 27 current event page. Until looking at old info, I didn't know why. The remark with the change stating: "endless polical(sic) propaganda crap mascrading(sic) as science not suitable for an "encyclopedia" - i read both secondary citations and NO WHERE AND I MEAN NO WHERE is there a statement of any published pier-reviewed(sic) source!" The 'secondary sources' on this "Current Events" page item are in news articles by the Washington Post (Dan Fagre, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey) and by the BBC (Ann Rowan, who led the field study team from the universities of Sheffield and Leeds) 178.etc. attempted to restore the original text which 68.etc removed (repeat ad infinitum) and later notified my of problem.

Comment on Neil's page (3) RaqiwasSushi here. Neil N  First question: Is 178.135.80.151 an "indefinitely blocked/banned" as alleged first on my talk page and above? When can someone post the "WP:Block Evasion" tag on my talk page? Can a user remove information, not posted by said user, from my talk page?

(4) To 68 before final edit Didn't see your comment when you initially removed the climate change item from 11/27/15. You wrote, "endless polical propaganda crap mascrading as science not suitable for an "encyclopedia" - i read both secondary citations and NO WHERE AND I MEAN NO WHERE is there a statement of any published pier-reviewed source!"

The references for this item were two newspaper articles. A Washington Post reporter's source is "Dan Fagre, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey" and a BBC reporter's source is. "Ann Rowan, who led the field study team from the universities of Sheffield and Leeds."

Why would a peer-reviewed source be required for a current event item? To get this resolved, recommend third party resolution.

Please respond. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Update - this entry was removed from 68's talk page 2 hours after it got posted. He did respond on my talk page but didn't see it. Here's info

Quote as of 3:30 am 12/2
 * == as per your request ==


 * feel free to comment here User talk:NeilN --68.231.26.111 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________


 * Did not see this comment until just now. Removal of 178's post shocked me and I was working on asking NeilN# about editing on my talk page and blocked users. Posted that 17:45, 30 November 2015. No response yet. S/he is really busy on this task.


 * Re: climate change. Will add discussion I raised with you onto NeilN# page, but later. It's 3:20 am ET and my eyes are closing. When wake up.


 * New item: deletion of Belgian astrophysists findings. Again,I question the peer review requirement you refer to. But need some help to understand how these named scientists' calculations can be propaganda! I'm restoring that item and request you let it go until I get started again today. If you do it again really need to know what's propaganda.


 * Please leave this text. It is MY page. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Posted 08:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC) __________________________________________________________________________________________ 12/1/ 15

− 	 Restored 03:41, December 2, 2015 ET
 * 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown
 * Two Belgian astrophysicists place in doubt both official accounts of how a Russian military plane was shot down by Turkey. The University of Leuven scientists question if Turkey could have issued 10 warnings in the time the jet was in their airspace, or that an SU-24 jet could have made a 90 degree turn after it was hit. "According to our calculations, it is clear that both Turkey's and Russia's stories should be taken with a grain of salt," they write. (The Independent)

- to 68 re RU 24 deletion

(68's comment when deleted
 * more propaganda = please explain in no uncertain terms where this item has been published in a "pier-reviewed" and respected organization)


 * Current events come from news. These are not permanent entries for an encyclopedia subject where peer-review research could be needed.


 * As stated on my talk page
 * "New item: deletion of Belgian astrophysicists findings. Again,I question the peer review requirement you refer to. But need some help to understand how these named scientists' calculations can be propaganda! I'm restoring that item and request you let it go until I get started again today. If you do it again really need to know what's propaganda.

--- to 94.187.114.220 Thanks for advice. Have written to 68 on first issue and on this new one. Restored recent item with comments asking don't delete.

Didn't restore climate change. 68 responded (said discuss on Neil's page) to my recommendation about this but didn't see it below the deletion of 178's alert about edit war.

It's 3:56 am ET and heading to bed for first time. (P.S. don't know if 68 will repeat earlier practice: delete RU 24 item from 12/1 and delete your post on my talk page -- that's what happened when 178.135.80.151 tried to help last Friday.)


 * (1) At 04:45, November 30, 2015‎, posted "== Please stop ==, the continuous deletions." [no response from 68 response, above deleted
 * (2) At 08:03, November 30, 2015, posted "== PLEASE STOP ==, Guess next step is referring this stupid stuff to an admin. Please restore the information posted by 178.135.80.151 from my talk page. Will give it 24 hours." response, above deleted
 * (3) 12:44, November 30, 2015, posted, "Content removal,(P) Didn't attempt to find out why?, tell now. When you initially removed the climate change item from 11/27/15, you wrote, "endless polical propaganda crap mascrading as science not suitable for an "encyclopedia" - i read both secondary citations and NO WHERE AND I MEAN NO WHERE is there a statement of any published pier-reviewed source!" (P)The references for this item were two newspaper articles. A Washington Post reporter's source is "Dan Fagre, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey" and a BBC reporter's source is. "Ann Rowan, who led the field study team from the universities of Sheffield and Leeds."(P) Why would a peer-reviewed source be required for a current event item? To get this resolved, recommend third party resolution. (P) Please respond.
 * (2a) 08:34, November 30, 2015 (edit) (undo) 30 November 2015 (UTC) ''68' responded, "

Peace

deleted from comments

=
going to do short entry on Neil's page. previous work 2 hrs, maybe 3, to decide to start over -- Entry on my:Trying to resolve a dispute with 68.231.26.111 over a news item in 11/27 current events. entry I posted on his/her talk page.: At 08:03, November 30, 2015‎, posted on 68's page
 * Didn't see your comment when you initially removed the climate change item from 11/27/15. You wrote, "endless polical propaganda crap mascrading as science not suitable for an "encyclopedia" - i read both secondary citations and NO WHERE AND I MEAN NO WHERE is there a statement of any published pier-reviewed source!"

The references for this item were two newspaper articles. A Washington Post reporter's source is "Dan Fagre, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey" and a BBC reporter's source is. "Ann Rowan, who led the field study team from the universities of Sheffield and Leeds."

Why would a peer-reviewed source be required for a current event item? To get this resolved, recommend third party resolution.

Please respond. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ":feel free to comment here User talk:NeilN --68.231.26.111 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)"
 * I posted news report below in 11/27 CE Science and Technology, final edit 09:15, November 27, 2015‎
 * Scientific studies confirm more than 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are retreating, and many of the smaller ones — like the alpine ice sheets of Glacier National Park in the U.S. — are rapidly disappearing. On the other side of world, at Khumbu Glacier near Mount Everest in the Himalayas, expanding ponds are merging and forming larger bodies of water. This could threaten settlements downstream if they overflow. Thawing glaciers account for about 20 percent of the sea-level rise recorded in the past century, adding to the meltwater coming from polar ice caps and ice sheets. (Washington Post) (BBC)
 * Another user, 63.92.228.137, added the header-Retreat of glaciers since 1850 at 17:05, November 27, 2015‎.
 * 68.231.26.111 deleted the entire entry at 23:18, November 27, 2015‎ with the comment, "(endless polical (sic) propaganda crap mascrading (sic) as science not suitable for an "encyclopedia" - i read both secondary citations and NO WHERE AND I MEAN NO WHERE is there a statement of any published pier-reviewed (sic) source!"
 * at 05:09, November 28, 2015, 178.135.80.175 restored the item with the comment, "Sources quoting leading university researchers,"
 * at 18:38, November 28, 2015‎, 68.231.26.111 undid that with remark,"(WP:BLOCK EVASION edits removed)" -- actions repeated # 4 minutes later
 * do/undo twice between 02:42, November 29, 2015‎,  and 17:10, November 29, 2015‎
 * 178.135.80.175 added a 3rd reference to support glacier item
 * at 02:44, November 29, 2015, 178.135.80.175 notified me about this on my talk page, " Glacier retreat; is continually reverting, can you please re-instate, don't have time further for edit warring. 178.135.80.61 (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)"
 * Read 178's alert, comment and request. So at 04:43, November 30, 2015‎, I restore item; at 05:44, November 30, 2015‎, 68.231.26.111 deletes item; at November 30, 2015‎, 178.135.80.61 restores item with comment, "Restore well sourced edit". Three more do/undids between 68 and 178 from 05:44, November 30, 2015‎ to 07:13, December 1, 2015‎. (5th by my count)
 * 94.187.115.69 joins this disagreement at 04:13, December 1, 2015‎. Restores item. 68.231.26.111 deletes. (these two users also in tiff over correct category for a different item)  Action/reaction repeats once on glacier item and once on category.

=
=============================================================================
 * Neil N , your actions on two of the above users, block 94.187.115.69 and and 178.135.80.69 indefinitely at 18:27, 17 November 2015
 * Not familiar with (un)blocking procedures. From what I can tell, at 10:29, 1 December 2015, (UTC), 68.231.26.111  reinstates block on 94.187.115.69 and 178.135.80.69. With these, linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive. I do not see any reference on either 94 or 178 nor if either is connected with  Xk9 (discussed in above link)

-- Background information not included in post to Neil RaqiwasSushi (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The news item, latest text: ;Science and technology
 * Retreat of glaciers since 1850
 * Scientific studies confirm more than 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are retreating, and many of the smaller ones — like the alpine ice sheets of Glacier National Park in the U.S. — are rapidly disappearing. On the other side of world, at Khumbu Glacier near Mount Everest in the Himalayas, expanding ponds are merging and forming larger bodies of water. This could threaten settlements downstream if they overflow. Thawing glaciers account for about 20 percent of the sea-level rise recorded in the past century, adding to the meltwater coming from polar ice caps and ice sheets. (Washington Post) (BBC) (Radio New Zealand)


 * 68.231.26.111 deletes it, his/er initial comment -- (endless polical propaganda crap mascrading as science not suitable for an "encyclopedia" - i read both secondary citations and NO WHERE AND I MEAN NO WHERE is there a statement of any published pier-reviewed source!)
 * 178.135.80.151 and 94.187.75.183 restored it multiple times; 68.231.26.111 reverts each attempt.
 * I restored it once; deleted. I stopped and attempted to discuss with 68 on his/her talk page. Each post was deleted by 68, who has added tangential comments on CE 11/27 edits. Referring me here, on my talk page, is the only substantive response on this issue.
 * I became aware of the revert at 02:44, November 29, 2015‎, when 178.135.80.151 posted on my talk page. As 178 requested, reposted item on CE 11/27 that was deleted.

Each and every post by is deleted from MY TALK PAGE by 68.231.26.111. That's my third question to you Monday. If 68.231.26.111 wants to delete everything I post on his talk page, that user's prerogative. Doing the same on MY TALK PAGE, common sense tells me that's wrong.

A third encounter with 68.231.26.111, (first ended when I stopped trying) started 17:43, December 1, 2015‎ about a CE 12/1 entry about two Belgian astrophysicists calculation raise questions about both Russia's and Turkey's explanation on RU-24 shootdown. 68.231.26.111 deleted it with this comment, "more propaganda = please explain in no uncertain terms where this item has been published in a "pier-reviewed" and respected organization."

Text: * 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown
 * Two Belgian astrophysicists place in doubt both official accounts of how a Russian military plane was shot down by Turkey. The University of Leuven scientists question if Turkey could have issued 10 warnings in the time the jet was in their airspace, or that an SU-24 jet could have made a 90 degree turn after it was hit. "According to our calculations, it is clear that both Turkey's and Russia's stories should be taken with a grain of salt," they write. (The Independent)

--- presentation of situation Neil N : RaqiwasSushi again. Disagreement with 68.231.26.111 over an item in 11/27 current events and one in 12/1 CE. 68 recommends we discuss it here. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RaqiwasSushi&diff=693108829&oldid=693108657)


 * Ergo.


 * Summary
 * The references for my post on glacier retreat were news items about US Glacier National Park which included information from Dan Fagre, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, and about the Himalayas with info from Ann Rowan, who led the field study team from the universities of Sheffield and Leeds.  68.231.26.111 deletes this saying it's propaganda and requires a published peer-reviewed source. [A third reference from New Zealand was added later.]


 * The item concerned two Belgian astrophysicists' assessment on the RU-24 take-down, concluding both Russia's and Turkey's explanations "be taken with a grain of salt." 68.231.26.111 deletes this one, with revised statement about propaganda and lack of source that's been "pier-reviewed" from a respected organization. FYI-The text for each item is below.


 * QUESTIONS
 * Deletion of the 11/27 item is cited as propaganda. I'm guessing political views are involved because it supports international climate change assessments. Scientific findings, not propaganda.
 * When, if ever, is a peer-review source required for a news item on a current events page?
 * Same issues with 12/1 item on scientists conclusions about RU-24 shoot-down.
 * Can a user remove information, not posted by said user, from owner's talk page?
 * I don't know what resulted in indefinite blocking of users 178.135.80.151 and 94.187.75.183. I, for one, support removing these blocks. More than "their actions attempted to help me." Based on this recent experience, think both handled themselves responsibly and calmly. I didn't see evidence linking either to Xk9 in this reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive
 * I don't think 68 intends to do harm.
 * I don't think 68 intends to do harm.


 * Appreciate your assistance. If need any information or have questions, please let me know. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your assistance. If need any information or have questions, please let me know. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

-
 * Text
 * (1) Glaciers


 * Science and technology
 * Retreat of glaciers since 1850
 * Scientific studies confirm more than 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are retreating, and many of the smaller ones — like the alpine ice sheets of Glacier National Park in the U.S. — are rapidly disappearing. On the other side of world, at Khumbu Glacier near Mount Everest in the Himalayas, expanding ponds are merging and forming larger bodies of water. This could threaten settlements downstream if they overflow. Thawing glaciers account for about 20 percent of the sea-level rise recorded in the past century, adding to the meltwater coming from polar ice caps and ice sheets. (Washington Post) (BBC) (Radio New Zealand)


 * Deletion comment
 * endless polical propaganda crap mascrading as science not suitable for an "encyclopedia" - i read both secondary citations and NO WHERE AND I MEAN NO WHERE is there a statement of any published pier-reviewed source!


 * (2) Astrophysists - RU 24


 * 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown


 * Two Belgian astrophysicists place in doubt both official accounts of how a Russian military plane was shot down by Turkey. The University of Leuven scientists question if Turkey could have issued 10 warnings in the time the jet was in their airspace, or that an SU-24 jet could have made a 90 degree turn after it was hit. "According to our calculations, it is clear that both Turkey's and Russia's stories should be taken with a grain of salt," they write. (The Independent)


 * Deletion comment
 * more propaganda = please explain in no uncertain terms where this item has been published in a "pier-reviewed" and respected organization

Third party request did not meet criteria. So will move to next step. enote

(1) Glacier comment deletion at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2015_November_27&offset=&limit=100&action=history

--23:18, November 27, 2015‎ 68.231.26.111 (talk)‎. . (8,272 bytes) (-920)‎. . (endless polical propaganda crap mascrading as science not suitable for an "encyclopedia" - i read both secondary citations and NO WHERE AND I MEAN NO WHERE is there a statement of any published pier-reviewed source!)

(2) Astrophysicists comment deletion at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2015_December_1&offset=&limit=100&action=history

--17:43, December 1, 2015‎ 68.231.26.111 (talk)‎. . (6,404 bytes) (-764)‎. . (more propaganda = please explain in no uncertain terms where this item has been published in a "pier-reviewed" and respected organization) (undo)

Found Fri morning after deciding to check histories of recent days

(3) no gender distinction in brain

--16:24, December 3, 2015‎ 68.231.26.111 (talk)‎. . (11,541 bytes) (+967)‎. . (Undid revision 693584961 by 67.79.128.52 (talk)no matter how much i also wished to remove this item as failing notability it still was published by PONAS which is a top journal!) (undo) --09:50, December 3, 2015‎ 67.79.128.52 (talk)‎. . (10,574 bytes) (-967)‎. . (undo) Text
 * Science and technology
 * A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports brains do not really fit into "male" or "female" categories. Tel Aviv University's Daphna Joel's research team, in analyzing the MRI scans of some 1,400 individuals, found only a very small number of the brains studied had features that were entirely male, female, or intermediate between the two. The vast majority had a mosaic.  (The Washington Post) (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) (Daphna Joel)

Update: December 5, 2015. Added wording (on gender identity) for connection to a current societal issue. 12:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

/////////////////Dec 10 Issues presented to another resolution methodology

Intro: This is my first use of this process. Trying to match above format.

Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes. Users talk pages. An administrator's talk page, where discussion was on sockpuppetness of other users who restored post.

Users involved

Location of dispute (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2015_November_27&diff=prev&oldid=692766005 (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2015_December_1&diff=prev&oldid=693337607

Dispute overview Two scientific news articles posted on Current Event pages were reverted stating each was propaganda and each was missing peer-reviewed source.

Have you tried to resolve this previously? Yes. Unsuccessful. 30 not qualified. Talk pages, other user's discussion circled but did not address two issues but did discuss too many extraneous topics. What happened there probably not pertinent; but links at end in case.

How do you think we can help? Uninvolved parties could reach consensus whether or not there the two articles are biased/propoganda. Also experienced users could advise scientific within news articles was satisfactory or not, and whether or not peer-reviewed sources was required, and whether peer-reviewed findings are ever required for a Current Events item.

Summary of dispute by RaqiwasSushi
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

An earlier dispute over bias ('last entry 8 days after date of current page: please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2015_August_27&diff=prev&oldid=679426708'') was resolved when I stopped pursuing it.

Findings on the (1) world's glacier retreat was posted to November 27 Current Events from two news articles. The first on US Glacier National Park, Dan Fagre, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey was interviewed. The second on Khumbu glacier in the Himalayas, reported on findings found by Dr. Ann Rowan (PhD Earth Sciences) of the University of Sheffield who led the field study team.

The second dispute (2) involved conclusions made by two Belgian astrophysicists on the RU-24 shoot-down. Decided at this point, no followup, etc., the item doesn't meet notability requirement, which on review was present in the beginning. But IP's removal was for same reasons, propaganda allegation and peer-review documentation requirement. Relevant to the extinct IP found the same problems as in (1).

Answers sought:
 * Whether 11/27 glacier retreat news summary in current events meets Wiki standards?
 * When is peer-review evidence required to document scientific news in Current Events?

Summary of dispute by 68.231.26.111
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. IP was blocked at 22:16, December 6, 2015, for one week. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A68.231.26.111

-->