Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-14 Transparent - unsupported reverts by Mion

Request for cabal mediation

Request Information

Request made by: Duckbill 11:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?: Transparent Transparency Mion 14:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]; Talk:Transparency#Mediation

Who's involved?: Duckbill, Mion

What's going on?: Duckbill has made 3 changes to Transparent, resulting in the removal of all prior content, and replacing it with a redirect to Transparency. Each of these 3 changes was justified by a lengthy, cogent, and rational exposition on Talk:Transparent. Mion came along and reverted these changes, without any explanation, only a note saying that he would comment later. Read also : Talk:Transparency. Mion 13:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about that?: For perfectly well justified changes, they should only be reverted if there is a justification for doing so. Just saying "yes I have a reason but I'll tell you later" isn't good enough.

There was already an request by Talk is currently going on at: Talk:Transparency. Please check there first. -- Ravn 15:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC). To discuss the matter before making changes to both pages. Duckbill preferes to stick to make changes and afterwards explaining them. So we argue on the way we both work on the 2 pages. First discuss, or just change. And about the content of the pages. We both have different angles of view.

Duckbill makes corrections according to MosDP and manual of style which is correct, and of course welcome.

My adds are ment to get the interwiki links to NL and DE in line.

The need of this DP page, if 1 of more terms are close to eachother

Transparent bridge
Transparent latch
Transparent Network Substrate
And secondly in the DE wiki there is also a page de:Transparent which cannot be linked to Transparency

Secondly I found out that it depends how the naming of the article was done influences the placing of the article on the disambigues pages. For example Leptocephalus is in common language a glass eel, whereby glass is the transparent factor. Same with the glass fish.

Well the animals and the minerals where experimental. Mion 13:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent en Transparency are so closely related that in the dutch wiki they are both on the same page. nl:Transparantie Mion 13:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my request: that both pages stay and that both pages contain a link to the other page. aka See also.Transparent/Transparency Mion 13:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the animals and the minerals on the page ? Just as you like.

In the time i am writing this the content of Transparent is removed by Duckbill. Mion

The articles Transparent bridge, Transparent latch, and Transparent Network Substrate don't belong on a disambiguation page for the concept of "Transparent" because you would never refer to any of them using the term "Transparent". They are all merely terms which contain the word Transparent. I think you are having difficulty understanding WP:D. (This isn't mean as an ad hominem attack, merely an attempt to identify more accurately the cause of this disagreement.) Duckbill 14:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duckbill preferes to stick to make changes and afterwards explaining them. Actually the explanations were added before the changes were made. My policy is that for changes which are fixing up things which are badly broken, where I am confident I understand the issues, and the fix is clear, I will just make the change. If there is some doubt, I will post a proposed change, wait for comments, and if there are no adverse comments, start making changes. In this case, the pages were so obviously running counter to the spirit of the guidelines that it warranted immediate changes. Duckbill 14:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wait for comments, 2 seconds ? I do makr the time for explanation,, in the last case it was 6.00 AM, you could have waited for the next day for my explanation. Mion 14:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I made the immediate large edit, I made sure that the full explanation was entered before making the edit. The explanation contained links to, and excepts from, the relevant guideline documents. This would mean that anyone else would be able to understand why the changes had been made, and that it was not merely random changes. A lot of effort went into preparing my exposition, and I don't expect it to be thrown away without a good explanation. Duckbill 15:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the animals and the minerals on the page ? Just as you like. No, they really don't belong there. The things that belong here are those concepts which are in the reader's mind (without a name) which the reader tries to think up the name for them and comes up with the term "Transparent". No animal or mineral falls into that category. Yes there are transparent animals and transparent minerals, but links to them do not belong on the disambiguation page for the word "Transparent". Again, this appears to be a problem with your understanding of WP:D. Duckbill 14:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well you removed the whole page.Mion 14:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC) instead of just the animals and minerals.[reply]

Yes ultimately I removed all the entries. My edits were not structured in a way which meant that the animals and minerals were removed in one edit, and other items in another. Rather, the structure was that I demonstrated that none of the links were appropriate, and removed them all. So yes, at the same time I removed the animals and minerals, I removed the other links as well, but that operation was justified in its entirety. Duckbill 15:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what about? The need of this DP page Transparent, if 1 of more terms are close to eachother

See my comment above The articles Transparent bridge, Transparent latch, and Transparent Network Substrate don't belong …. Duckbill 15:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: interwiki links. Do we want to seriously compromise the smooth layout of the English language Wikipedia for the sake of some inter-language linking? I don't think we want to let the tail wag the dog here. The concept here is "Transparency". This can link from the English "Transparency" article out to other languages. If other languages have separate pages for their adjectival form, then surely they can have links from their nounal/conceptual form, so someone starting at the English "Transparency" could always reach them. Also there is nothing stopping other languages from linking the English page for "Transparent", even if that page is a redirect. You appear to be suggesting significant roughness in the layout of the English language pages for the benefit of the inter-language linking. Duckbill 14:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm asking accept a DP page Transparent or if you make a redirekt accept the links Transparent on the Transparency page. You are refusing both, saying there is no such thing as transparent. Mion 16:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page discussion is about transparent not Transparency , so i don't see your "The concept here is "Transparency" could always reach them. is not correct, if people keep removing the links. Mion 15:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC) follow the interwiki links and try to get to the right page yourself. Mion 15:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is about a potential disambiguation page for the term "Transparent". However, we don't currently have any valid targets for the disambiguation! We can hardly have a page which says: "Transparent" may mean, er, oh, we don't have any meanings to offer you, sorry. So our current best shot is to redirect the reader to the concept relating to the adjective (which goes along perfectly with WP:R). Duckbill 15:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The head of the page transparent

1. A quality of a material such as glass that means one can clearly see through it
2. A quality of a system or organization wherein theories and practices are publicly visible, which reduces the chances for corruption
3. obvious; readily apparent

         His reasons for the decision are transparent when you consider his agenda.

1. I still disagree on : The articles Transparent bridge, Transparent latch, and Transparent Network Substrate don't belong here.
2. That you removed the page Transparent.

Ok, lets rest the case and wait for the opinion of other readers, lets say a few days ? Mion 16:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I.m off for holiday, back around 20-3, so the mediation gets more time. Reg. Mion 12:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?: No I have nothing to hide. Please talk to me in a place where everyone can see. agreed. Mion 13:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

Mediator response

Duckbill has not been active in the past month. As there is no one else involved in this case, there is nothing to mediate. I would suggest to Mion that you see Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Further dispute resolution to find other ways of handling the page redirect. Asking an administrator who is more familiar with Wikipedia policy about his/her opinion may be a good idea as well. Cowman109 ^Talk 22:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC). OK Thanks Mion 07:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]