User talk:Kwamikagami#Stop moving ship class articles

:Since two rounds of full protection were insufficient to prevent further edit warring, we have to proceed to blocks. This partial block applies only to the most recently edited articles (Bono dialect, Akan language, and Central Tano languages) and is intended to last for the duration of the dispute resolution process. When dispute resolution is finished for any of the articles, which can be accomplished by:

:* Completing a dispute resolution noticeboard case,

:* Having a valid request for comment closed, or

:* Reaching a consensus agreement for any of the articles through talk page or noticeboard discussion

:please apply to be unblocked from editing the resolved articles. — Newslinger talk 17:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::Two things,

::Per BOLD, isn't edit-warring when you restore a reverted contentious edit, not when it's reverted?

::Second, can't you protect the status-quo ante? The idea is not to freeze in disruptive edits. Regardless of the dispute, we're supposed to provide reliable info to our readers. — kwami (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::No, edit warring refers to {{xt|"a series of back-and-forth reverts"}}, and repeated reverts of disputed edits are also considered edit warring unless they are exempted. Per the policy on edit warring exemptions (WP:3RRNO), there are eight types of reverts that are exempt from edit warring, but none of your reverts or Bosomba Amosah's reverts qualify for any of those exemptions. My previous comment in the above section contained a link to this policy.{{pb}}Per {{slink|Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes}}, {{xt|"Fully protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus. Editors convinced that the protected version of an article contains policy-violating content, or that protection has rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision, may identify a stable version prior to the edit war and request reversion to that version. Before making such a request, editors should consider how independent editors might view the suggestion and recognize that continuing an edit war is grounds for being blocked."}} You are welcome to create an edit request for each article to implement a stable pre{{endash}}edit war version of the article while dispute resolution is ongoing, but because edit requests can be contested by any editor (including Bosomba Amosah), it would be more productive to simply continue with dispute resolution. — Newslinger talk 02:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC) {{small|Corrected word 04:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)}}

::::{{ping|Newslinger}} But that's not what our policy is for cases like this. That's for additional edits that people want to make to protected articles. The relevant part of our policy is, When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content. One of our policies is that we need to follow RS's. What you're saying instead is that if someone makes disruptive edits, and the article is protected, then for all practical purposes they win -- their disruptive edits are frozen into place. We have a duty to our readers to provide reliable info. You can rv back to before the dispute, as far back as you like, but you should not promote demonstrable nonsense such as contradicting sources. — kwami (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The articles are currently not protected at all, so any editor who is not partially blocked from editing the articles can correct any policy violations that they recognize. When you create a dispute resolution noticeboard case for an article you are partially blocked from editing, you can ask the mediator to perform a revert to a stable pre{{ndash}}edit war version while the dispute is pending. Alternatively, you can use {{tl|Edit partially-blocked}} to submit an edit request on the article talk page, start a discussion on an appropriate noticeboard, or initiate a request for comment. Since this is an unresolved content dispute that has been ongoing for multiple months, it is not obvious to an uninvolved editor which version of the article is the most policy-compliant one. — Newslinger talk 04:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: I've struck an incorrect statement in my previous comment, as Wikipedia:DRN Rule A states, {{xt|"If there has been edit-warring over versions of the article, the moderator will not select which version is the 'right' version to be displayed during moderated discussion. Simply stop edit-warring. The purpose of moderated discussion is to select between versions of the article, and the moderator will not act as an arbitrator."}} If your preferred version of the article is the one that is best supported by reliable sources, this will become clear as you present your evidence in dispute resolution. {{slink|Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Twi}} is moving along relatively smoothly, and I hope the disputes about the other three articles can be resolved through discussion in a similar way. — Newslinger talk 00:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kwamikagami, thank you for completing the dispute resolution noticeboard case with {{np|Bosomba Amosah}} at {{slink|WP:DRN#Twi}}. I have removed your partial block, and hope to see the remaining disagreements on the affected pages resolved in a similar fashion. — Newslinger talk 17:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I have a message for you at the Talk:American_and_British_English_pronunciation_differences#Nehru, Sequoia & Vehicle will be reinstated NKM1974 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! {{clear}} Bosomba Amosah (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I believe that you moved the page that I created titled Gardiol and redirected it to Vivaro-Alpine dialect citing it as a content fork. I didn't believe it was a content fork, so could you please explain to me why you believe it's a content fork? Thank You. Spino-Soar-Us (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:our article Vivaro-Alpine dialect maintains that it's regional a synonym, also it was very nearly an orphan, with none of the incoming links expected of a language article — kwami (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:ah, i see it also says gardiol is a distinct language, for which it has a reference, so i've reverted myself

:could i suggest the following -

:rewrite Occitan language and-or Occitano-Romance languages - and higher in the tree if appropriate - and link to it, to show gardiol in its proper position so that people can find the article;

:correct the coverage at Occitan language so that it no longer has contradictory accounts;

:request a move to 'gardiol language', as that's the usual form of the title of an article that we maintain is a distinct language, or else copy-paste it there, since there's only one substantial edit in its article history, unless you have reason to think we should remain ambiguous

:thanks, — kwami (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. Do you think that if "whistled speech" is a more suitable term for introducing the subject, with no mention of "whistled language" at all, that the article ought to move to that title as well? Largoplazo (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:maybe

:i read 'whistled language' to be a language that is whistled, while IMO the general phenomenon would be better characterized as 'whistled speech', to avoid the implication that it's a different language than non-whistled speech

:a list or category of 'whistled languages' would still be fine IMO — kwami (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)