Talk:Electrico
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia. | ||
 |
 An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore. To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is also under the scope of WikiProject Singaporean Arts and Entertainment. |
[edit] Stop reverting the infobox!
Hi, I don't mind if you guys engage in an edit war here. I have no horse in this race, except, please please stop re-introducing the about-to-be-deleted template {{infobox band}}. No matter what else you might think about the contents of the article, you won't like the results once that template is actually deleted. I've tried to add a copy in the versions used by both sides in this war, and even that hasn't seemed to help. Xtifr tälk 08:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I undid it once by accident - sorry about that. I'm not sure about the next step in resolving the dispute as it is an otherwise non-wikipedia editor involved and not discussing the article. violet/riga (t) 11:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Resolving disputes
Starting this as a new topic, since it's not directly related to the infobox issue.
I see there's been some user talk page discussion, and yes, I see it's one-sided so far. However, I'd also like to see some discussion here about the specific content that's under dispute. Even if that ends up being one-sided as well, it will help make it clear to third parties what the dispute is about. Beyond that, refer to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, which suggests that the next step is to disengage for a while. Unless we're dealing with libel here, it won't hurt to have a POV article for a little while. Xtifr tälk 21:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's not really that kind of dispute. It's a user that is constantly reverting to a version of the article that includes numerous video links and goes against the MOS - it's not allowed and he needs to stop. He won't discuss it, and you can see from the user's contributions that there is never likely to be anything forthcoming. violet/riga (t) 21:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Going against the MOS is not something that needs to be resolved immediately (unlike, say, libel or WP:BLP violations). This looks like a perfectly normal dispute to me, and I see nothing that would justify going outside of the normal resolution procedures. The only other thing I'd say is that if he violates the WP:3RR rule, then you can probably get some admin intervention, but make sure you don't violate that rule yourself. Xtifr tälk 21:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I know you're trying to help but I do know all about this stuff. Titles do not use camel case and blindly undoing that is not acceptable. violet/riga (t) 21:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's as may be, but many editors (including myself) consider edit wars a far greater evil than CamelCase titles and inappropriate video links. The more closely you follow the standard dispute resolution procedures, the more likely you are to get a sympathetic ear when you go to the next step after "disengage for a while". You may know all about the manual of style (as do I), but I also know something about dispute resolution, both as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians and as an occasional volunteer at Wikipedia:Third opinion. And while I'm mostly sympathetic to your arguments, I'm not prepared to take sides as a third party at this point. Minlilin (talk · contribs) has managed to stop short of doing anything blockable so far, so standard dispute resolution
guidelinespolicies still apply. Xtifr tälk 22:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)- Minlilin is ignoring discussion attempts and blindly reverting, violating the MOS and OWN. I'm tempted to protect the page myself but that would be inappropriate. violet/riga (t) 22:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's as may be, but many editors (including myself) consider edit wars a far greater evil than CamelCase titles and inappropriate video links. The more closely you follow the standard dispute resolution procedures, the more likely you are to get a sympathetic ear when you go to the next step after "disengage for a while". You may know all about the manual of style (as do I), but I also know something about dispute resolution, both as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians and as an occasional volunteer at Wikipedia:Third opinion. And while I'm mostly sympathetic to your arguments, I'm not prepared to take sides as a third party at this point. Minlilin (talk · contribs) has managed to stop short of doing anything blockable so far, so standard dispute resolution
- I know you're trying to help but I do know all about this stuff. Titles do not use camel case and blindly undoing that is not acceptable. violet/riga (t) 21:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Going against the MOS is not something that needs to be resolved immediately (unlike, say, libel or WP:BLP violations). This looks like a perfectly normal dispute to me, and I see nothing that would justify going outside of the normal resolution procedures. The only other thing I'd say is that if he violates the WP:3RR rule, then you can probably get some admin intervention, but make sure you don't violate that rule yourself. Xtifr tälk 21:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
