Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution

Issue with an article on website and mobile

Hi

Please can someone help? On mobile phone web version there is an image on an article that is overlapping the text making the website unreadable on mobile phone. So I saw a simple space between image and text fixed it. However a user claims doing that causes issues on the desktop website version. Is there anything that can be done to sort this as the last thing I want is a petty dispute. Many thanks Onshore

Caernarfon Railway Station

Hi,

There is an issue with the article titled above, when viewing on a mobile phone the rail track image overlaps all the text marking it hard to read.

I did a fix by adding a space between image and start of text but a user claims doing that affects the desktop website version, so the user rolled back my edit.

Is there a way to fix this? I have contacted the user as shown below but I’d like to fix it rather than it becoming a petty dispute.

Please can you help?

Thanks, Onshore

Hi, just noticed you have reverted edit. Please can you fix this for mobile as it's needs attending to…. Caernarfon_Railway_Line.jpg Onshore (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not experienced in the areas of bugs and problems, unfortunately; however, you may wish to go to WT:UKRAIL and describe the issue there (particularly if it affects multiple pages). Hope that helps. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but if you're not experienced then why did you revert me fix? Please show image of your website error? I may have to forward this to Wikipedia admins. Onshore (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Please do so they can look into what might be causing the problems. I can't send an image, but if you look at what your edit did on the Desktop version, you'll see that the lead turned into what you get with Template:Code. Whether this is what you got on the mobile site, I don't know. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will forward this on. Onshore (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Use responsive design: Try to use responsive design to ensure that the page displays correctly on different devices. This may require some CSS tweaking, but will ensure the page is readable on a variety of devices. Rearrange content: Consider rearranging content on the page to fit better on different devices. This may include rearranging the position of text and images to reduce overlap. Try other editing methods: Collaborate with other editors to try to find other editing methods to solve this problem. Maybe try other ways to fix the image overlapping text issue without affecting the desktop version of the site. Yangpeifu (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Convention relating to the International Status of Refugees

Moved to Wikipedia:Teahouse § Convention relating to the International Status of Refugees

 – –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

My AI Content Was Removed - Why?

Moved to Wikipedia:Teahouse § My AI Content Was Removed - Why?

 – –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Donations

I was going to make a sizable donation to help fund Wiki because I am greatful for the knowledge. After reading what was said about Donald Trump I was very disappointed! Much of what was said was more opinion than fact. Hardy any of his best achievements were never listed. Only the bad or the negative. When he was critiqued after Biden was elected, no previous president has achieved many of the milestones Trump did. I’m just a democrat that wants to see an honest two sides of the coin, and this is clearly a one sided coin. Trump was not all good, but then nobody is. He just needs to be treated fairly, and without bias. If Wiki is letting other readers change and control information inputted on this site, then it needs to be vetted somehow for examples like this. By the way, I only chose to look up Donald Trump because I was told that Wiki weakens on the more controversial topics. Thought I would put your site to the test. Well, they were correct. I need information to be facts only no persona bias. This muddies the waters, and ruins the results thus making the results unusable and incorrect. Sorry Wiki, you have some house cleaning to do first before I donate to your cause. 71.78.172.38 (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

We summarize what mainstream reliable sources say about him. Please see WP:RSPSOURCES for a list of sources. If you have specific suggestions of things to add to his article, please make a post at Talk:Donald Trump. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2024

The content about the history of the National Southwestern Associated University on this page is not accurate. Its site during the Second Sino-Japanese War was Yunnan University rather than the National Kunming Normal University, which was established in 1946 after the War (cf. https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/云南师范大学, 2024-02-03). - George Ho, PhD and a former student of Yunnan University. 125.238.239.9 (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. We can't use another Wikipedia as a source. RudolfRed (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom discussion

Hi. There is an ArbCom discussion with one of the main topics being the dispute resolution process. It is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals. Your input is welcome. This notice is placed to attract objective input (whether in favor, neutral, or against) of uninvolved editors related to the interest of the dispute resolution policy page, seeking a broader reaching consensus. It is not canvassing,

In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

talk with the other editor at their user talk page in conduct disputes contradicts WP:NOBAN

Or does it? See the argument at WP:ANI#User Tonymetz posted again to my talk a month after a very clear request to never do so again Doug Weller talk 11:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I've always thought the reading of WP:USERTALKSTOP that allows one user to ban another from their talk page, for any reason, to be unfortunate. It runs contrary to many other policies and guidelines which encourage users to discuss matters on talk pages. That reading also doesn't really jibe with what the guideline says: If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected. However, editors should not make such requests lightly, especially concerning their talk pages, as doing so can impede the ordinary communication which is important for the improvement and smooth running of the project. Emphasis added. Mackensen (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Upon close inspection of the guideline, there really isn't anything that isn't covered by other policies. If an editor continuously posts unhelpful comments to a user talk page despite the recipient's requests not to, then that's clear WP:HA and blocking should be handled under that policy. However, WP:USERTALKSTOP also says that "a user cannot avoid administrator attention or notices and communications that policies or guidelines require to be posted merely by demanding their talk page not be posted to", which means that most normal comments should be allowed. For example, in this specific case Tonymetz was commenting on Fred Zepelin's conduct, which is a recommended (possibly required?) first step in WP:RUCD, so such comments should be exempt from WP:USERTALKSTOP.

The only "helpful" comments that would be blocked by the guideline seem to be those deemed "optional" by policy (e.g. those suggested in WP:APPNOTE, or bringing other discussions like content disputes that can be addressed elsewhere onto user talk pages). I suppose one could even make a case for these comments to be deemed harassment if done in an annoying way. In any case, I don't think violating WP:USERTALKSTOP itself should be cause for sanctions, it's the other policies that "imply" this guideline that should be cited as the root reason. Liu1126 (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

There are two major categories of disputes: content and conduct . User:Talk pages are the primary channel for WP:RUCD . If the recipient can USERTALKSTOP for any conduct dispute, that undermines the entire RUCD process.

I'm advocating for a higher bar before USERTALKSTOP can be used. That bar is HARASSMENT. Policy is already clear that the user talk page is meant for conduct disputes -- AKA disagreements. Of course the post should be made in a polite, simple, and direct way ... [possibly using] several templates. And of course HARASSMENT is not tolerated.

We need to neuter the concept that USERTALKSTOP means the conversation is over. The whole point of User Talk is to resolve a dispute and "hanging up the phone" will never resolve anything. Without USERTALK, you'll see more tension in the community and much higher load on ANI / Admins Tonymetz 💬 18:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Can an ADMIN help champion a decision or RFC here? I can help as well with guidance. I'd like to see a resolution given the investment in the ANI Tonymetz 💬 22:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Afghanistan page Content violation

Hello the creator of the Wikipedia page for Afghanistan has used the flag of the Taliban . Even though some people commented he/she should change it. Please edit the new flag and make it back to its original colors. Saly161616 (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I have a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issue where users are deliberately making articles inaccessible

There are several parts of the MoS and general best practice for Web accessibility such as MOS:DTAB, MOS:TABLECAPTION, MOS:COLHEAD, etc. that oblige us to include some things and exclude some thing to make the site semantically correct and useful for the blind (among others). I have recently edited on some pages where I have added these required accessibility features and a small group of editors have removed them with the rationale (in my interpretation) being "we don't do that" and they seem to not really care that things like table captions are required. In spite of the fact that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is written to stop a small group of editors deciding that "we don't do [thing that is required sitewide]", I don't see what the remedy is with this small group of editors who will just remove these required accessibility features when I add them. What am I missing? What is the remedy here to get this to stop? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)