Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Wolf	Closed	Nagging Prawn (t)	29 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 1 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	Closed	Randomstaplers (t)	26 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 hours
Double-slit experiment	Closed	Johnjbarton (t)	9 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 12 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	Closed	Wolfdog (t)	7 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 1 hours
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	New	PromQueenCarrie (t)	6 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 2 hours	Last1in (t)	17 hours
Genocides in history (before World War I)	New	Jonathan f1 (t)	1 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 1 hours	Cdjp1 (t)	17 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 06:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

1 Spore (2008 video game) (Example case)

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Example on 13:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, we have discussed this issue on a talk page, and we reached stalemate in our discussion.

Location of dispute

• Spore (2008 video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Example (talk · contribs)
• Example2 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Me and Example2 (talk · contribs) are having a bit of a dispute about Spore (2008 video game). Some of the references in the article support the genre being a god game, others support the genre being a life simulation or a simulation game. I think we need to come with a way to have both listed in the article, as all references seem reliable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried talking about the issue with Example on the article talk page, but I need some extra input on what I can do here to move forward with resolving this dispute, as there are numerous sources supporting the different genres.

How do you think we can help?

Direct me to ways to resolve this dispute, or where I can get assistance in resolving the dispute. We need to come up with a compromise as how to move forward with the article.

--Example (talk)

1.1.1 Opening comments by Example2

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Statements that this game's genre is simulation are simply untrue. No policy, guideline or essay on Wikipedia demand that we spread lies in article just because the misled reliable sources stated so. --Example2 (talk)

1.1.2 Spore (2008 video game) discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

The dispute at hand seems to be to me that there are multiple possible genres to the article, and many sources backing up the different genres, however the issue of which genre best fits is still an issue. A mediation cabal case might be useful here, the assistance of a third party editor could assist in working out a compromise that works well. Example3 (talk)

Zoophilia

• Zoophilia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Another user and I cannot agree on content of article, and we keep reverting each other back and forth. I want the edit war to end, but I also don't want to leave the article in its current state with lots of lost information (which is what the other user wants).

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Plateau99 (talk · contribs)
• Someone963852 (talk · contribs)

User insists that I am "pro-zoophilia" even though I am trying to deal with the article from a neutral-POV. User constantly reverts edits and erases large chunks of the article claiming that such chunks are "original research" when in fact those chunks are cited by mostly scholarly sources. I want the edit war to end.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Zoophilia}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Discussion on talk page is going in circles and is not resolving anything

• How do you think we can help?

Stop the edit war, allow the article to be brought back to the way it was on November 12, 2011 (before the edit war began)

Plateau99 (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Zoophilia discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

In particular, I strongly oppose User:Someone963852's desire to eradicate the terms "zoosexual" and "zoosexuality" from the article, even though there are scholarly sources which back them up. To eliminate the terms without even mentioning them would be pushing to article in a POV direction (in this case, anti-zoophilia).

To prevent me and Someone963852 from reverting each other indefinitely, a solution should be reached Plateau99 (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If you had been paying attention (instead of reverting every single thing I edited), you would see that the terms "zoosexuality" and "zoosexuals" were merged under the Terminology section. I changed zoosexuality and zoosexuals to zoophilia and zoophiles respectively for consistency with the article's name (as I mentioned multiple times before on the talk page and edit history).

Please stop thinking that everyone is "anti-zoophilia" if they made a change you disagree with. Someone963852 (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not about pro or anti zoophilia -- this is about removal of information. In your most recent edit, you have gotten rid of most of the arguments in the "arguments for zoophilia" section. Those arguments should be brought back because they were fully cited; granted, some parts needed more citing, but that's what Wikipedia is all about: constant improving. Your reverts are not improvements, they are a step backwards. In addition, the correct terminology throughout the article should be "zoosexual" -- this isn't "pro-zoophilia" bias, it is because of the zoosexuality sources I listed on the talk page. And your comparison between zoosexuality and "pedosexuality" is not a good one. Zoophilia and pedophilia have nothing to do with each other. In fact, that was in one of the arguments you erased. Plateau99 (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It might seemed like I removed a ton of information, but that's because you were the only one editing the pages for months. No one cared to recheck the sources or remove original research. I came along and removed the ones that were "bad," so they all add up after those times.

Also, the materials you added weren't "improvements". Actually, they were a step backwards for the article because they were filled with original research and non-neutral POV materials. Most of those original research and non-neutral POV material came from the "arguments for zoophilia" section, so I removed it. Not because I'm "anti-zoophilia", but because they weren't constructive for the article.

My edits (mainly removal of original research, non-neutral POV material, unsourced additions, poor/ unreliable sources, irrelevent materials, claims that aren't backed up by sources, opinions) are trying to make the article fair and neutral, but you keep reverting them back to the "pro-zoophilia" slant. Someone963852 (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you that my intention is not to make a "pro-zoophilia slant" in the article? If anything, you're making an "anti-zoosexual" slant in the article by censoring information. The only reason I am not undoing the changes you've made right now is because I know that if I did it, you'd revert it 2 minutes later.

The fact is that your edits to the article are wrong and they should be reverted. The information which you claim is unreliable and irrelevant is very much relevant and well sourced. It isn't up to you to decide what is and is not relevant in an article.Plateau99 (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Now this discussion is going in circles again with you (being pro-zoophilia and all, but claiming you're not [although your edit history of the article contradicts you]) accusing others of being "anti-zoophilia" when you disagree with their changes. Someone963852 (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi fellow editors (that's not at all cheesy is it?!). It might be a good idea if you take a short break from discussion with each other until someone can take a good look at the issue and start the process of finding the compromise you have so far not found yourselves. Relax and spend a couple of days reading other articles or something. A little time off will do you both some good. No harm in it anyway  fg 03:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not cheesy at all :). I'll read this over and give my thoughts on it today. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 15:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Haven't had a lot of time to look through the content that was removed and the sources that were provided for the content that was removed, but I will note the change of wording from zoophilia to zoosexuality. It's about how common the wording is in reliable sources. One must also take care not to give undue weight to marginal views. As the title of the article is Zoophilia, then changing every instance (or many instances) in the article of Zoophillia to Zoosexuality is not the right thing to do. I'll need some time to take a closer look at the content that was changed/removed and then weigh in once I've taken a look. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Steven et al, I blocked both of the users for 24 hours and I full protected the article for a week due to the edit war. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Steven Zhang's assessment here. I think if the question was purely about the question of whether to use zoophilia or zoosexuality, then we could deal with it here, or maybe send it to an RfC. As it is, though, there appears to be other content issues at work here as well, and so I think mediation might be a better fit. Have you considered submitting a request for a mediator at the Mediation Cabal? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

History of pottery in the Southern Levant, History of pottery in Palestine

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. History of pottery in the Southern Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) History of pottery in Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Recently, the article History of Pottery in the Southern Levant was moved to History of Pottery in Palestine It had been under the title History of Pottery in the Southern Levant for around 5 years, and it had been my understanding that this was in order to keep the article NPOV. I am currently in a dispute with the mover on the article talk page and was wondering if anyone would be able to assist regarding the proper naming of the article. Thanks Drsmoo (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Oncenawhile (talk · contribs) Drsmoo (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=History of pottery in the Southern Levant, History of pottery in Palestine}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Discussion on going on History of Palestine talk page as well as a discussion initiated by Oncenawhile on my personal talk page. Brought the issue to the NPOV noticeboard, and it was suggested that I bring it here. How do you think we can help? More opinions Drsmoo (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC) History of pottery in the Southern Levant, History of pottery in Palestine discussion I am a mediator/clerk here at DRN. This is more in the nature of a comment and some observations than a solution. I've looked at this and there is no question that "Palestine" is undoubtedly the most common term for this region. Between 1800 and 1966 there are only 37 Google Books hits for "Southern Levant" or "southern Levant" and almost 2 million hits for "Palestine". Under WP:TITLE that would ordinarily be enough to decide the issue, but under the WP:POVTITLE subsection of WP:TITLE the first paragraph makes it clear that a less-common term is to be preferred if use of the common term might appear to be endorsing one side of an controversy. It says, in pertinent part: Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. (It should be noted in passing that pursuant to both WP:POVTITLE and WP:RNEUTRAL, it is acceptable to use non-neutral terms as redirects to a neutrally-named article.) There is a clear controversy involved in this case, Palestinian nationalism, but the term "Palestine" is unlike the examples given which clearly involve hot-button words such as massacre and scandal and, later in WP:POVTITLE pejorative nicknames such as Octomom and Antennagate. The question is, then simply this: Is Palestine such a commonly–accepted name for this region that its very "commonness" overcomes any apparent support it might imply for Palestinian nationalism? I'm not, frankly, sure of the right answer to this, but I would note — and these are just observations, not an assertions That one possibility could be that Palestine was at one time a relatively neutral term for the area but that due to the rise and increasing organization of Palestinian nationalism that it has now lost the neutrality that it once had. That one solution might be to analyze the Google Books hits for "Palestine" — a daunting task, unquestionably — to divide them between uses which are neutral and those in which they refer to Palestinian nationalism or claims by or about it. A third, not entirely unreasonable, solution would be to recognize that there is a substantial, wholly non-specious argument to be made, whether or not absolutely proven, that "Palestine" is, or is no longer, neutral and that Wikipedia should, on the theory that it should avoid the mere possibility of appearance of bias, avoid its use in favor of more neutral terms such as Southern Levant. I'm not at all certain of how the question should be answered. One issue which ought to also be considered is whether, if the question is to be answered, whether it should be answered just for this one article or for the whole of Wikipedia. I would invite the opinions of my fellow mediators on these issues. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Hi TransporterMan, I am other other editor involved in the original discussion. I suspect I can speak for Drsmoo as well when I say that we are grateful for your calm and considered thoughts on this. I hope others will comment as well. Your comments about how the neutrality of the term Palestine has changed over time are important here. I would like to suggest that the distinction must be drawn not between using the word today or a century ago, but rather using the word in different contexts - in particular using Palestine to refer to the region today versus using Palestine to refer to historical topics: Describing the region today as being called Palestine could imply support for Palestinian nationalism, since today Israel exists on or controls the entire region. Describing the region in history as being called Palestine is consistent with scholarly consensus and replacing it from its normal context with an an uncommon term like "Southern Levant" could imply support for Israeli nationalism, since Zionist propaganda organizations like CAMERA have attempted to expunge the name Palestine from history for many years (e.g. a recent example here) in order to further their cause. In other words, when one side is trying to erase historical recognition of the other, there can be no "middle". Palestine either existed in history as a recognized region, or it didn't, and there can be no middle without implying support for one side of the debate. Anyone who suggests "Southern Levant" is a neutral term is either not familiar with the aims of Zionist propaganda, or is very familiar with the aims of Zionist propaganda... Oncenawhile (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks Transporterman. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't believe anyone on Wikipedia is trying to "erase Palestine." I certainly don't object to their being a history of Palestine article or any similar articles. What I have objected to is replacing links from Southern Levant, which is a neutral term, to Palestine, which is non-neutral in my opinion. Southern Levant and Palestine are not completely synonymous, Palestine being the name for an area within the Southern Levant at a certain time. In Oncenawhile's own words when creating the History of Palestine article "Wikipedia currently has many articles describing overlapping regions in this area - e.g. Palestine, Canaan, Zion, the Land of Israel, Syria Palaestina, Southern Syria, Jund Filastin, Outremer, the Holy Land and the Southern Levant. These regions are all defined slightly differently, and therefore have different articles." Given this statement, it is unclear why Oncenawhile has felt the need to move multiple articles from "Southern Levant" to "Palestine" as well as altering multiple links from "Southern Levant" to "Palestine". Here, here, here here here here as well as in two instances moving additional articles from History of the Southern Levant to History of Palestine here and here as well as here where he instead directed away from the History of the Southern Levant article to Ancient Israel and Judah. I agree with his original statements that the regions are defined differently and there should be multiple articles, on the contrary Oncenawhile has been atempting to methodically remove references to the term Southern Levant from Wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Hmm. Perhaps you could strike everything in your post above from the words "Given this statement" onwards as being irrelevant to the content-related topic you posted above (and wholly misrepresentative of the facts). Any editor who is keen to hear more of this behaviourial question can read our AN/I discussion here. But for now at least, it would be great if we could stay on topic. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Additional note: A google search for "ancient Israel" produces 1,550,000 results, while a google search for "ancient Palestine" produces 672,000 results. A google book search for "ancient Israel" produces 735,000 results while a google book search for "ancient Palestine" produces 128,000 results. The reason I am in favor of using the term Southern Levant, as opposed to Israel or Palestine, is that it avoids the back and forth move wars, and is a neutral generic term that applies to both regions without neglecting either. I have no problem with their being overarching histories of the Southern Levant articles as well as separate articles for histories of Palestine, histories of Israel etc for the sake of being specific and relieving tensions. But I don't see why Oncenawhile has seen fit to summarily remove references to Southern Levant or to replace Southern Levant articles with Palestine when they are not entirely synonymous. Drsmoo (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC) @Oncenawhile: Saying By saying there is no middle ground, creates an you're trying to create if-you're-not-for-us-you're-against-us leverage for your argument. That argument creates a False dilemma since there is at least one third position: being as neutral as possible even if absolute neutrality cannot be achieved (and I do not assert, claim, or agree that it either can or cannot). Given the choice between a facially-neutral term which happens to further the agenda of a group in some way and a facially-non-neutral term, my feeling is that the facially-neutral one ought to be used. However, I still also feel that the non-neutrality of the term Palestine is not established and is a matter which should be discussed and decided by the community. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC) PS: I've revised my initial statement to remove the appearance I was addressing your intent, rather than your argument. That implication was unintended, but I didn't catch my poor wording until after I hit "Save page". I apologize for the unintended imprecation. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC) @both: My colleague, Mr. Stradivarius, makes a good point in the Soccer in Australia dispute, below. Since this is a naming dispute, the best venue to obtain active discussion on this matter would be at Requested moves. I've taken the liberty of listing this there so as to get the discussion started. Please feel free to supplement what I've said at Talk:History_of_pottery_in_Palestine#Requested_move, but in light of the volume of what's been said already, I'd suggest that you might be best served by just letting your existing arguments speak for you. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flag of Western Sahara

• Flag of Western Sahara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

If you look at the edit history of this page, you'll see it's primarily a history of reverting between edits making it a two-item list consisting of Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Flag of Morocco and edits redirecting it to the first of those two links. The entire page history looks like one big edit war. I opened an RfC in March, and presented three options for the page:

1. Deletion as patent nonsense, as given the subject is a geographic territory, it has no flag
2. Disambiguation, or a two-item list, containing the two flags used in the region (see example)
3. Redirecting to one of the two links listed (see example)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Night w (talk · contribs)
• Reisio (talk · contribs)
• NickCT (talk · contribs)
• Omar-Toons (talk · contribs)
• Seb az86556 (talk · contribs)
• Tachfin (talk · contribs)
• Xiquet (talk · contribs)
• Zscout370 (talk · contribs)
• Koavf (talk · contribs) 

I've included pretty much every major editor involved in the page. The most recent editors involved are the first six. The user with by far the largest number of edits is Reisio, who appears to be involved in almost every instance of warring on the page, including the latest.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

 Done.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Flag of Western Sahara}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

The RfC was closed without consensus in March. The edit warring stopped, but has started up again today.

• How do you think we can help?

The purpose of this page needs to be determined with a solid consensus so that this activity can stop. Any neutral opinions is most welcome, as is any advice about other forums to seek assistance, although it'd be good if we could come to a decision here.

Nightw 07:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Flag of Western Sahara discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

• Only one acceptable solution Simply put, only one flag is intended to represent Western Sahara, so that is the flag of Western Sahara. If some other entity(ies) don't think of it as representing the territory, that's fine--it's not Wikipedia's place to declare that it is or isn't the official or approved flag of the territory, it's our place to say that someone created a flag that is supposed to represent it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi everyone, and thanks for posting the dispute here. It looks like this dispute has already been well-debated, and that it has been going on for some time, so let me see if I have the facts straight here. The real-world facts pertinent to this dispute seem to be the following:

• The flag in question is used by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, but it was also in use in the area before it was adopted by them
• The geographical area of Western Sahara is disputed territory, currently mostly controlled by Morocco, with the remainder controlled by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic who are exiled in Algeria

I think the deletion option is an obvious non-starter, as the term "flag of the Western Sahara" is fairly likely to be searched for, and readers searching for that are probably looking for valid information on which we have articles; so the page should probably have something in it. So we are left with the other two options, redirection and disambiguation/list article. There do seem to be cases for both positions. On the one hand, the redirect option is supported by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - not many people who are searching for "flag of the Western Sahara" are likely to be looking for the flag of Morocco. On the other hand, the disambiguate/list option is a valid attempt to uphold the neutral point of view policy, as we don't want to give the impression that the flag is an official flag of the territory in question, when it is in fact disputed.

In many naming disputes there is no clear best position to take, and discussion can go round in circles for years in some cases. In this case, however, I think we can have our cake and eat it. In my opinion, it is possible to satisfy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and still keep a neutral point of view, if we do the following:

1. Redirect Flag of Western Sahara to Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.
2. Include a hatnote at the top of Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic leading to Flag of Morocco.
3. Edit the Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic article so that its disputed status is clearer.

At the moment the Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic article does not seem to be at all neutral, as should be apparent from phrasing like "When the country gains independence by means of a referendum and is internationally recognized ...". If we can do a proper job of maintaining neutrality in this article, then I hope that redirecting to it will be a lot more palatable to editors who have been in favour of the disambiguation/list option. Please let me know if I have made any errors in my assessment, and I would love to hear what you think of my suggestion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There was an RfC, outcome was keep status quo. I've reverted to the RfC's outcome; now if you want to discuss this again, go for it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read the RfC discussion, and according to SlimVirgin, who was asked to close it, there was no clear consensus for a change. That is not the same thing as "keep the status quo", so it's probably not a good idea to keep reverting while this discussion is underway. I am making a suggestion that I hope will be palatable to both users who were in favour of redirecting and users who were in favour of disambiguation, and I'd really like to know what you think of it. As you seem to be in favour of redirecting, I would be particularly interested in hearing what you think of my suggestion of putting a hatnote on the top of Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and editing the article to make it more neutral. Looking forward to your input — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Stradivarius, and my thanks for taking on this mammoth dispute which has largely been ignored by everyone but those Night w listed, who virtually cancel each other out. I was tempted to endorse your proposal, because of hat notes being merely what they are, and because it would be a form of compromise that also mostly stuck to the status quo, which is not incredibly terrible at present.

My worry, however, is that a hat note referring to Morocco at the top of flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic would be a way for people to bring this dispute to even that specifically named article, and it would just go on and on until Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic itself became a divided article half devoted to Morocco.

Few people have stuck with this dispute for as long as I have, you see, and most might not recognize one side's blatant lies for what they are, because they weren't there and why should they sift through years of edit histories to find out the truth. For example Night w recently said that the "disambiguated" version "has been the version since the page's creation", and while I remember clearly that it was not, everyone else not completely accepting his edit as one in good faith would have to dig back to the beginning to see it as the lie it is. These people will say anything, and they will take whatever tiny advances they can get.

You see flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic used to be at flag of Western Sahara for years. The move to where it is now and implementation of a redirect itself was a compromise brought about by certain people and their agenda, but that wasn't enough for them, they're still at it even now. What assurance is there that after some action taken as a result of this discussion they will not keep going. Will you be there the next time to remember? I doubt it. I'm sorry but I for one cannot assist in the continuance of this POV spread. No one is going to type in "flag of Western Sahara" looking for information about Morocco. No one, ever. The idea is ludicrous. A compromise at this point is not a compromise, it's just another step in the victory of their agenda.
¦ Reisio (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Reisio, and thank you for your comment. First of all, please comment on the content, not the contributor. Remarks such as "one side's blatant lies" and "these people will say anything" are really not helping this dispute. Please realise that you will need to compromise to resolve this dispute, so you should probably start getting used to the idea now. As for your concerns about the content, I think a hatnote is necessary for a) resolving the dispute, and b) for the small percentage of users who would be looking for the flag of Morocco. As the flag of the country that is currently controlling the region, it is not unbelievable, and indeed if you dig deeper into the Google Images search that you linked to above, you will actually find images of the Moroccan flag.

Regarding the name, it may indeed be the case that we should have the article at Flag of Western Sahara rather than Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. This depends on what the common name for the flag is, and not so much according to whether the flag is official or not. In fact, I just did a quick google search, and I get 800,000 hits for "Flag of Western Sahara", and only 140,000 hits for "Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic", so I think you are probably right. We should move the Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic article to Flag of Western Sahara, and have a hatnote at the top of the article there. I hope this will still be acceptable to the users who previously opted for the disambiguation/list option - as I see it, the key to the neutrality of this solution is in the editing of the flag's article itself.

So, about the editing part, here's what I envision. In addition to the hatnote, I think we should clearly mention the disputed nature of the territory in the lead section of the article. This should definitely be a couple of sentences long, or maybe a paragraph if necessary. Also, we should have a section in the body of the article devoted to the dispute, after the sections describing the flag itself and its history. This section should have a {{main}} link to a relevant article, probably Legal status of Western Sahara. I trust that between yourselves you can craft a section that satisfies everyone, but even if you have problems with this, that is not in itself a reason to abandon this solution. After all, dispute resolution will still be around, so you can always just file another post at this noticeboard. I hope I've addressed all of your concerns, but let me know if there is still an aspect of this solution which is bothering you. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually see moving the content back to flag of Western Sahara as a compromise at all, but a step back towards where we never should have left in the first place, so to that specifically I am not opposed. Nor am I opposed to a hatnote at an article at flag of Western Sahara, but to one at flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic with the current redirect in place.
I see "a section in the body of the article devoted to the dispute" as inviting further dispute. There are a great many articles on Western Sahara and the various names and things associated with it, and many of them have such a section, and each section of each article must be monitored vigilantly to preserve NPOV despite the bulk of each article not being about the conflict itself.
While I do think the article content should be at flag of Western Sahara, I don't think putting it back there will do anything for resolving this dispute (which of course is not by itself a good reason to not do it, merely an observation); IMO it will probably accelerate it.
To be clear: I do not oppose your proposal, but doubt it will do much to end this dispute.
Thanks again just for your participation.
¦ Reisio (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record, Reisio, we can all see the edit history and see that this is not the case. When the page was effectively moved to Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic in September 2007 by Zscout370 and "certain people and their agenda", this article was reincarnated as this version, which remained stable until you redirected it (two years later) in July 2009, and continued to do so—in January 2010, September 2010, November 2010, February 2011 and finally yesterday, after being reverted every time. In addition, please read up on assuming good faith of your fellow editors. I have never accused you of harbouring an "agenda", etcetera, and as you have no proof that I do, please afford me the same respect. Nightw 03:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Stradivarius, for your suggestion. I think it is a good suggestion overall, though I would like to hear what some of the other participants think, as many have not been active since yesterday. The most accurate solution in my opinion is deletion, as the idea of an apolitical territory having a flag is absurd, but that will likely hinder navigation. I'd actually like to see Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic moved to Sahrawi flag, as it represents many things to do with that nation (not just the state). For optimal aid to navigation, redirecting the page in question there would be a good idea, as long as a hatnote is maintained for the ambiguous term. Nightw 03:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you like my suggestion. As for the precise article name, we can work that out later by a requested move if it is going to be disputed. The important part to agree on for now is my suggestion of the redirect/hatnote/editing solution. Let's wait and see what the other participants think about it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^♫ 04:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the proposal is completely acceptable. I don't even see that much of a difference... As long as it's a redirect, some sorta headnote would even clarify things. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Great, so that's three editors definitely on board, and from Koavf's position it looks like he's on board too. So we still need to hear from NickCT, Omar-Toons, Tachfin, Xiquet, and Zscout370. I think I'll wait another day, and then I'll post a message on their talk pages if they haven't responded. If they then don't get back to us within a reasonable timeframe - say 1 week, so by the 4th December - then I'll go ahead and implement the change. If anyone disagrees, then we can take my suggestion to RfC and see if that makes consensus for it clearer. Does that sound like a good plan? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. You can probably cross Xiquet off that list, as it doesn't look like he's been active for a few months. Nightw 11:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Good plan. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment from NickCT - I for one do not like the proposed solution. I appreciate Mr. Stradivarius's WP:COMMONNAME argument, and as a fan of commonname I think it has merit. Several counterpoints; 1) The only reason that the common name for flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (FoSADR) is "flag of Western Sahara" is b/c no one has any idea what the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is (i.e. these guys aren't particularly notable), and so it's much easier to call their flag the "flag of Western Sahara". I mention this, b/c I think it speaks to the "common biases and limitations" clause of Wikipedia:Search engine test. As a sidenote, I tried to find other examples where a common name flag isn't the actual recognized flag of a region but came up empty handed. I thought Flag of Tibet would be promising, but apparently the flag of Tibet is still recognized by the Chinese government. 2) WP:N would probably say we should display both flags. Note in other examples of disputed territories (e.g. Flag of Abkhazia, Flag of Northern Ireland) we display both flags. 3) Probably most importantly, there is WP:V. I doubt many will disagree that the FoSADR is simply not a widely and/or officially recognized Flag of Western Sahara. Using the FoSADR article would imply that it is, and as such, would simply be wrong. 4) While I appreciate WP:NPA, I think a quick review of the edit history of Flag of Western Sahara, will show that one editor has continuously, over a period of years, pointed Flag of Western Sahara to FoSADR while ignoring the objections of a whole slew of other editors. Seems like WP:SOAPBOXing to me. I respectfully suggest that if that one editor didn't keep slow motion edit warring, this topic wouldn't be up for WP:DR. Conclusion - I'm not going to strenuously object here. I think Stradivarius has done a good job trying to find WP:N, and I could live with some kind of heavily qualified hat note at the top of the article. That said, I think more ideal solution solution would be a well crafted RfC, that encourages more response than the previous RfC we had for this topic. NickCT (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I don't understand why the option of deleting has been so hastily cast aside when it could so easily solve the dilemma. Yes, people are likely to search for "Flag of Western Sahara", but they are equally or more likely to search for "History of Western Sahara", "Culture of Western Sahara" or any of the other things that are sections of Western Sahara. Why not merge and redirect both articles to a section titled simply "Flag"? --FormerIP (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

For the same reasons moving the article content back from flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic to flag of Western Sahara will not stop this dispute. The issue is that one side believes the flag exists on its own and is commonly named "flag of Western Sahara" regardless of who controls the majority of the territory, and the other side thinks the name "flag of Western Sahara" applies only to the flag of the nation currently controlling more than 50% of the territory regardless of history and convention. I have no objection to redirecting to a section of Western Sahara as long as it is clearly stated that this image — — or "the flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" has been known as and continues to be referred to by name as "the flag of Western Sahara", even if it is also stated that it is currently more formally named the flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, even if it is also stated that the area occupied by Morocco uses the Moroccan flag. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If it was in a section of the Western Sahara article, both sides of that could be explained, without having an article title that might seem to take a side in the dispute. --FormerIP (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, I just foresee opposition to acknowledging the name being used for that particular flag, even if it is clearly explained. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

re "Why not merge and redirect both articles to a section titled simply "Flag"?" - I think that a potentially good solution. NickCT (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Flag of Western Sahara shouldn't redirect to Flag of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, no more than Western Sahara should redirect to Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. They are two separate distinct things. Re common name, if I search for Flag of Northern Ireland then I'm certainly not looking for the Union Flag (flown there officially) but for the Ulster Banner (used in sport events) and it's good to land on an article that isn't a redirect to neither and learn that it wasn't what I thought it would be. An encyclopedia is about accuracy (including in nomenclature) not about accommodating people in whatever misconception they might have had. Furthermore, there are more flags used to represent Western Sahara, than the one of Morocco and SADR; there is also historically the Spanish Francoist/colonial flag, regionally the Saguia El Hamra and Wad Ed-Dahab flags, probably even Morocco's old flags in parts of the territory and "Khat Shahid", a rival group of the Polisario (The current gov of the SADR), might as well use another flag variation. Flag articles aren't only about the current flag that often changes over time even in undisputed territories, the one of the SADR is the POLISARIO flag and never changed. So the proposed solution is a good faith attempt but it fails to address these points, additionally a hatnote about Morocco in the SADR article is inappropriate as they are entirely unambiguous (they don't even share one syllable), even if adopted I give it at best a month before being removed by good faith IPs/editors or emotionally driven editors who would rightfully say that it is completely unambiguous with Morocco. I suggest two proposals:
  

1. Keep it as it is and expand to include the historical and regional flag + a hatnote about the SADR flag (I don't see how that would hurt or POV-pushes anybody's side)
2. Redirect to Western Sahara, or a section there about the flags used in it.

Tachfin (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll support either of those options. But to me, having a section in Western Sahara about a flag seems about as absurd as the redirect itself. It also seems a little undue in such a high-priority article—no other country article that I've seen has a section on flags. A better place for such a section might be Legal status of Western Sahara or Politics of Western Sahara. Please note that this also extends to Coat of arms of Western Sahara, currently a redirect. Nightw 12:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Night. I prefer Tachfin's option 1, though option 2 seems feasible. NickCT (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Just as a general note: I think the reason why this redirect or article exists in the first place is because of the stupid standard template {{Flags of Africa}} which is based upon a geographic template and mindlessly produces the same list, regardless of topic. There are many of them, and so people think the redlink must be filled. I remember I once sent something about "Islam on the Faroe Islands" or some such to AfD, which was an article about the one Muslim family there (result was 100% delete). What I'm saying is unless this (and other templates) are changed, there will always be a redlink begging for people to recreate it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of my favourites are Military of Navassa Island and Sport in the Vatican City. An {{#ifexist}} clause to Western Sahara on {{Africa topic}} should stop more of these redirects being created, at least for that country. Nightw 03:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The template/redlink issue is a good point Seb az86556. I don't see why we couldn't omit Western Sahara from the template though.... NickCT (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My preference goes for options 1, but failing that option 2 should be acceptable, I concur that a whole section about a flag isn't appropriate so other redirect variations (politics/status etc) can work. Same goes for coat of Arms there are many used for the territory not just that of the SADR. The fact that WS and SADR are distinct should be understood. When writing Western Sahara reliable sources speak of the territory, not the SADR (which claims it). Not sure why some would insist that the two must be confused here. Especially when we clearly have material that would be relevant to Western Sahara and not the SADR. --Tachfin (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, I'll happily support either of those two options. Although would the title still be appropriate in the possessive? Nightw 04:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Mmm...maybe something like Flags of Puerto Rico is more appropriate. --Tachfin (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about this dispute some more, I think the next logical step would be to take it to another RfC. It seems clear that we won't be able to reach a consensus on these pages, and comments at this noticeboard are not binding in any way; that sort of thing is usually better handled by RfC. I did consider referring this to MedCom, but SlimVirgin's comments in the last RfC have persuaded me that another RfC with clearer wording could do the job just as well. I recommend giving a short history of the dispute, and then listing three or four choices for participants to choose from. Giving too many choices will make it a lot harder to find consensus, so less is definitely more in this case. Would anyone like to volunteer to draft the RfC for us? I suggest doing it at Talk:Flag of Western Sahara/RfC draft, so that anyone can update it, and discussing the draft on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara so that other editors can see the discussion. Once we agree that the statement of the dispute is neutral and the options to choose from are clear, then we can put it up live on the talk page. How does this sound? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel as though we're already getting close to a consensus here. We've got three suggestions. Tachfin, Nick and myself would seem to prefer an all-inclusive article, but we've each stated that we're willing to accept FormerIP's suggestion for a redirect to another article (legal status or politics). I'd like to hear what Seb and the others think of those options. Reisio has opposed all suggestions that have been made; he's currently blocked, but I'm hoping for a miracle that he'll support something on his return. Nightw 14:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually (as those who have actually read my contributions to this discussion already know), I have not opposed a single proposal from mediating parties. Not even one.  :) "Funny" how you read it as I opposed them all. ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to be able to agree with you, but I notice that the three editors who have been in favour of the redirect/main article solution haven't commented on this specific proposal yet. If they agree to redirect the page to a "flag" section or another article, then that will be our problem solved, but I think it might be unwise to jump the gun. I think I'll try the same trick as last time - I'll wait for a day, and then post messages on their talk pages, and if there's no reply after a week then we can take action. I don't think we can quite claim a consensus in the absence of their commenting, though, so if there's no reply then we should probably retire to the article's talk page and prepare an RfC. Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I wasn't meaning to claim any kind of consensus, just that I think one seems like it could be within reach without a further DR step. Thanks for sticking with this by the way! Nightw 13:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a bit of history, at the early stages of Wikipedia, there were attempts to associate "Western Sahara" with the flag of the "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" as if they were the same thing, consensus has been against such practice (Wikipedia:Western Sahara Infobox/Vote). This discussion is an example of the remnants of such attempts, though for me the issue has little to do with NPOV but more with encyclopedic precision; no RS ever called the flag of the SADR, flag of Western Sahara as the two are two separate things. If we're willing to allow such a degree of hand waving, then we'd better just redirect anything "Western Sahara" to "SADR" or vice versa. Tachfin (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Floppy disk hardware emulator

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Floppy disk hardware emulator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? User:Guy Macon doing a lot of misbehaviours, angry editing [1] "Plan of attack..." [2] - explicit edit warring "Pizza connection fancies..." [3] - the Italian conspiracy "I'm going to allow..." [4] [5] - enforcement-like editing Witch hunting any edit [6] Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Guy Macon (talk · contribs) 137.204.148.73 (talk · contribs) Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) asked to be added Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Floppy disk hardware emulator}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Brief advices about misbehaviours, dispute avoidance. How do you think we can help? Get attacking user understand that "which hunting" and "pizza connection fancies" damage wikipedia itself because of their "worst faith assumption" and "wikipedia time wasting". 137.204.148.73 (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Floppy disk hardware emulator discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Actually, you didn't notify all users at all. Myself, for example (Guy Macon pointed this out to me); and there are several other editors involved at that page. It looks to me like Guy Macon's concerns that you are Blackvisionit are well-founded, given that your edits are substantially similar to his, and due to the other real-world connections (all revealed on WP, no outing here). Are you saying that you are not User:Blackvisionit, and that the two of you have just made substantially similar edits, including edits that seem to bias the page in favor of products with which you have a COI? I find the edit summary on this diff particularly telling, given that neither your IP nor any other IP seems to have been editing the article at the time the last flare-up occurred. And, assuming you are Blackvisionit, then you've already been instructed that any edits biasing the article in favor of particular companies or types of emulators will result in a block. Is that what you're looking for here? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC) There appears to be an error in the "this diff" link above. Perhaps you meant to link to this diff? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, Guy Macon's diff is the correct one. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC) It should be noted that Blackvisionit (who I have good reason to believe to be 137.204.148.73) owns a company that sells one particular type of floppy disk hardware emulator - the kind that is used on IBM-Compatible PCs. The content dispute is about whether the page should treat all floppy disk hardware emulators - PC, Mac, Commodore, Atari, various music synths - equally or whether it should be focused on the particular type of floppy disk hardware emulator that Blackvisionit sells. Also, at the top of this page under "Purpose of this noticeboard", it says "This noticeboard is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page." 137.204.148.73 has engaged in zero talk page discussion despite multiple requests from multiple editors that he do so and has instead engaged in edit warring (He is currently at 3RR). On a personal note, I welcome close scrutiny of my behavior. Nobody likes being told that they did something wrong, but I am well aware that I sometimes need correction. I have Asperger's syndrome and benefit greatly from any comments about my behavior and relationships with others. In my case, criticism is not rude - it is very much appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Updated list of recent administrative actions regarding IP Address 137.204.148.73 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blackvisionit Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive173#User:137.204.148.73 reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: No action right now.) Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Floppy disk hardware emulator (Closed) Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Active "hunt & attack" by editor --Guy Macon (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Telangana movement

• Telangana movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

There is a section that one user wants to be added and the other opposes it. There have been attempts to get mutual consensus and a 3rd party opinion was also sought. But nothing seems to have changed.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Vamsisv (talk · contribs)
• Ramcrk (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Telangana Movement}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Mutual discussion on talk page. 3rd party opinion

• How do you think we can help?

Both users have their POVs but not aware how the information should be captured on the article as per Wikipedia guidelines.

Vamsisv (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Telangana Movement discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

For reviewers, this is the section in question. I haven't read it, but perhaps a primary reason for opposition is that it might seem excessive: perhaps it can be adequately summarised? Nightw 06:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the section, Night w. Vamsisv, I think the issue here is that this section is focused only on the negative portrayals of this movement, whereas Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. This means that we should include both positive and negative reactions to the movement. You might want to have a look at this video that shows the basics of how this works, and I highly recommend reading Wikipedia:Criticism, which will give you more specific pointers. A good start would be to rename the section to "Reception", and to find positive points of view that you can include. Once the section is written from a neutral point of view, its inclusion in the article is much less likely to be disputed. I hope this makes sense - feel free to ask me questions below. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm fully aware that Wikipedia is written from a Neutral point of view and nowhere have I tried to stop any focus on any positive aspects. In the section, we are talking about the Rise of Maoist Influence in the movement - This *is* a negative aspect - what positive things can be written about this? I've been open to renaming the section and I have changed it from "Fears regarding the movement" to "Concerns regarding the movement".

If there are positive reactions to the movement, I repeat that I'm not against them being included in the article. But it is unfair to stop me from describing the other side of the movement just because there aren't any positive reactions. Vamsisv (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

How about my suggestion above? Rename the section as simply "Reception", and make it about the published reception of all parts of the movement, not just "Maoist tendencies". In that case, I would be extremely surprised if there were no sources that were positive about the movement. If you go this route, then due to reasons of balance, the remarks on "Maoist tendencies" will likely need to be shortened. In any case, the whole article puts too much emphasis on recent events, and coverage of recent events should probably either be shortened or split into daughter articles. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely open to renaming the section. But the other user is completely against having this content as a separate section. He feels it is not relevant and has his own POVs regarding that. Vamsisv (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've posted on their talk page asking for them to comment here. Let's see what they think of the compromise solution. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Maoist may be trying to fish in troubled waters of Telangana movement. But Maoists are not affecting Telangana movement in any way. We can include Telangana movement in Maoist movement page but Maoists references in Telangana movement does not make sense as Maoists are not influencing Telangana movement in anyway. In order to reduce the size of the Telangana movement article we moved lot of relevent info to other articles(The article used be a size of 142k in September; now its 52k). Its entirely inappropriate to include irrelevant info like Maoists in the article; let alone creating a section for it. Regarding too much emphasis on recent events; we summaized the movement until September 2011. We plan to summarize the events between September-Nov 2011 then move these details to another new page which can be called Telangana All people strike 2011. Ramcrk (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a definite need to mention about the rise of maoist influence due to the Telangana movement and in some cases direct involvement or encouragement. It is a clear cause & effect situation. There are very clear sources & reference to support this. Vamsisv (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael Woo

• Michael Woo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Michael Woo is an American of Chinese descent, a former Los Angeles City Council member. Both editors feel that his Chinese name can logically be presented as part of the article, but one editor wishes to add the Pinyin and Jyutping romanizations (because that's the way it is done for Chinese names) and the other does not (because Mr. Woo is not Chinese, but American, and there is no Source to indicate he ever used the romanizations).

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• GeorgeLouis (talk · contribs)
• HkCaGu (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Michael Woo}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

We have discussed the issue on a talk page and we have agreed to take the Chinese characters and the romanizations out of the leed (where HkCaGu originally inserted them) and to put at least the Chinese characters into the body of the story, along with their source (which you can see in the footnote).

• How do you think we can help?

Determine whether the romanization words should also be included in the article.

GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael Woo discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

This is a tricky question, as I'm not aware of any Wikipedia guidelines that would give us an indication of what to do here. Under the circumstances, I think the best thing may be to take this question to RfC and find opinions from a wide range of editors. Does this sound like a good idea to both of you? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that a WP:Cabal of Chinese-language editors will swamp the discussion. How would you handle that, Mr. Stradivarius? Questioningly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What about the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, since the discussion at Talk:Michael_Woo seems to hinge on whether there are Reliable Sources for using the romanizations in the article? (A new wrinkle: One of the editors now claims that there is a Reliable Source for using "Kay" as the middle name of Mr. Woo. The other editor disputes that.) Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Or another idea - how about just emailing Michael Woo himself and asking him which version he prefers? That would seem to be as good a criterion to base this on as any other. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^♫ 23:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A Chinese name is not subject to the person as to what "version" he/she prefers. It's all about how it is used. There is a crowded Chinese-language media in the Los Angeles area--newspapers, radio and TV. Woo used all those during his mayoral campaign. (And he no doubt continued to use his Chinese name in community involvement afterward.) As the Chinese script is not alphabetical but ideographic, it has been consistently across the English and other Wikipedias to include romanizations to indicate the sound, which is in turn encylopedic for a biography because of its link to a person's Latin/English legal name. Mandarin Pinyin is the worldwide standard for Chinese, and Cantonese is the lingua franca of Woo's generation of ethnic Chinese population of Los Angeles, i.e. if he speaks any dialect, it's Cantonese, and if he doesn't speak Chinese fluently at all (likely the case), this is the one pronunciation he will recognize. In other words, romanizations come along with the name once it is used/given/known.

In articles of better known ethnic Chinese persons, there's even a box describing all the scripts, meanings, pronunciation in different dialects, etc. I don't think Woo deserves that much "Chinese" attention. My minimalist approach led me to prefer first-sentence coverage only. The current sub-header/one sentence style is to me already an overkill, lest a box like Michelle Kwan's. However, the initiating editor seems to prefer maintaining consistency among L.A. Councilmen (or, as he says, "Americans") than among similar politicians of similar background. HkCaGu (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I take your point. There is certainly an argument to be had for maintaining consistency across the encyclopedia, and I do agree that we have to weigh up the different arguments before making a final decision. To GeorgeLouis - if you are worried about bias in RfC participants, then you can always try mediation. This dispute isn't eligible for MedCom yet, but you may be able to find a MedCab mediator willing to take on your case. If you choose to go the mediation route, though, be aware that you will both have to submit to the process. I still think that RfC seems the more natural fit here, but it is up to you both how you want to proceed with this. Finally, HkCaGu, I saw your suggestion on the talk page of taking this dispute to ANI, but it doesn't seem like a good idea to me. If anything WP:BOOMERANG may apply, for comments like this one, so it is probably best to back off from that line of inquiry before too many people notice. As usual, comments and questions are most welcome. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I finally understood what the other user was driving at, so I edited the sentence in question, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Woo&action=historysubmit&diff=463507698&oldid=463216492. I hope this will satisfy everybody concerned. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:GravEngAbs

• Template:GravEngAbs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Editing against consensus; repeatedly inserting/reverting unsourced, POV descriptions. No respecting RFC outcome.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Crissov (talk · contribs)
• Gerardw (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Discussed on talk page, opened RFC.

• How do you think we can help?

Not sure. Persuade Crissov to accept the consensus, if that can be done here.

Gerardw (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:GravEngAbs discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

I would give the RfC more time before assuming it has produced a consensus. There have only been four editors commenting so far, and the RfC was only opened three days ago, on November 27. With no further objections I'll close this thread, as it can't really fulfill any purpose that the RfC isn't doing already. If there are still problems after the RfC has been closed, then dispute resolution will still be around to help. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue goes beyond not following the admittedly preliminary RFC consensus; specifically the WP:IDHT lack of response to persistent and repeated requests for sources. Six physics articles currently have unsourced POV information in them. I would appreciate comments or advice from other editors, if possible. Gerardw (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please keep the discussion on the template’s Talk page, at least for now. No-one has replied yet with a clear opinion about the Designations row that user:Gerardw keeps changing. — Christoph Päper 09:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Montrose Star

• Montrose Star (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Hacking and malicious attacking of individuals

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• 173.11.165.225 (talk · contribs)
• Tracy.tek (talk · contribs)
• ShreveNewsMan (talk · contribs)
• Lvillagrantx (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Montrose Star}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Yes, on talk page, I have reversed the edits.

• How do you think we can help?

The above article is being hacked by the owner (or owners representatives) and targeting individuals that used to be involved with that business. Can this page be watched more aggressively or block that IP from making those edits. I have had to do 4 "undo's" so far in one day. Or maybe lock the page? Apparently, several people left this particular publication and started their own newspaper, and they are using Wikipedia to defame them.

NewsManJustin (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Montrose Star discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Hi ShreveNewsMan, and thanks for posting here. I'm sorry to hear that you've been having trouble with other editors on the page, and I can sympathise. It's never nice when editing doesn't go how you want it to. It's probably worth bearing in mind that the other editors are both new, and so probably don't know their way around Wikipedia yet, and that the best way to go about this might just be to point them in the direction of our policy pages. Before we delve into that dispute, however, I think that there is a bigger problem here - notability. There aren't any reliable third party sources in the article at the moment, and I couldn't find any mentions on Google News or Google Books apart from a couple of references to the newspaper in passing.[7][8] I'm afraid that if no reliable third-party sources about the newspaper exist, then the article does not pass Wikipedia's guideline on notability, and should, unfortunately, be deleted. I recommend reading the notability guideline and the essay on notability of media, and then trying to find sources about the newspaper. Maybe there are sources from back in the 1970s that haven't made their way online yet? Let me know if you have any questions about this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

HIV

• HIV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:HIV Virion-en.png

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The image titled "Diagram of HIV" in this article does not seem to have a reliable source. I submitted it for deletion but it was kept. Nobody who opposed the deletion gave a reason which refutes my reason for requesting the deletion and yet the image was kept.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Be..anyone (talk · contribs)
• Optigan13 (talk · contribs)
• Xijky (talk · contribs)
• Pieter_Kuiper (talk · contribs)
• Beta_M (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=HIV}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I have discussed this matter on the Talk page. I have requested that the file be deleted and entered into some discussion there. I have asked for advice at the Commons Village Pump.

• How do you think we can help?

I would like a definitive judgement regarding whether or not the image meets the requirements for reliable sources. The image is currently sourced to dead links, is a dead link a reliable source? The source link points to an archive instead of to the originator of the image (the NIH). This appears to be against the rules for reliable sources. WP:NOR states that "all material challenged or likely to be challenged, including quotations, needs a reliable source." One of the criteria for identifying reliable sources states that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"WP:IRS. A web-archive does not appear to meet these criteria. There *are* similar images available from the originator of the image (the NIH) and if the image was to be sourced to the originator then that *might* meet the requirements for reliable sources. I have suggested this on the Talk page but to no avail.

DavoDavoDavo (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

HIV discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

• I'd like to make a comment that the image was uploaded to commons, and deletion request was initiated there, there was a clear Keep consensus, but we must keep in mind that the goal of commons is "educational" and not "encyclopaedic" content. Beta M 04:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beta M (talk • contribs)
• FYI: Privacy oddity with single sign-on Resolved with {{db-nouser}}, thanks. –82.113.99.212 (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• DavoDavoDavo, can you please clarify your request some? I think you may be defining terms differently than Wikipedia normally does. First, the source of the image is not the web-archive, but the person/organization that created the image, which in this case seems to be the US National Institute of Health. The idea that the image should be "sourced to the originator" instead of to the archive, frankly, is not the way we do things - Wikipedia has long accepted that the Internet Archive faithfully reproduces the original content of the websites.

So, is your complaint that the NIH is not a reliable source for health-related diagrams? Or is it something else? I fear I must be misunderstanding you, but if that is your claim, please be more specific about why you think that to be the case. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

ISSUE 1) It is common knowledge in research that when a person references a source that has multipul editions or versions (eg. a website that periodically updates its content; compair textbook referencing whereby only the most recent edition is referenced) that only the most recent edition or version should be referenced. Citing an older archived edition when a more recent, current edition/version is available is generally considered to be inadequate referencing. ISSUE 2) The reason reputable website publishers update their websites is so that they publish the most up to date correct information available. If the original links to the NIH are now dead that is a clear indication that the NIH has updated the information on their website and anyone who uses their information is responsible for making sure that they are referencing the NIH's *current* publication in order for their citation of the NIH's information to be both authoritative and reliable. It is not enough to simply argue that the image appears to be the same as a current image on the NIH's website. The NIH does not publish medical images only. The images that appear on the NIH website are connected to the information contained in the text of the articles and documents published there. This is important. What if the NIH has changed it's position regarding how they interpret the information in the diagram? What if they no longer believe that this is a diagram of HIV? Then the Wikipedia article would be making false assertions about the NIH. This is just an *example* of what *can* happen if the rules for reliable sources WP:IRS are not followed.

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" WP:IRS. The Wayback Machine is an archive service not a publisher and certainly not a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking. The NIH, on the other hand, *is* a publisher with a repuation for fact-checking and they have a current edition of their website which supersedes their older editions such as the one archived on Wayback Machine. DavoDavoDavo (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. As for issue 1, that is not a standard recognized by Wikipedia, to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps it is a standard in some fields, that doesn't mean it's a standard here. I'm addressing issue 2 in a sub-section below. As for the Wayback Machine, that argument is flatly opposed to consensus here on Wikipedia, as I stated above - for an example, we actually have an instruction page on citing to the Wayback Machine at Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wait a minute. I just took a look at the users listed as being involved and they are the commenters at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:HIV Virion-en.png. The English Wikipedia does not have authority over Commons and Commons is not subject to the policies of the English Wikipedia. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of entering tl;dr territory, is your request that the image be deleted? Because that's a matter for Commons, not the English Wikipedia. If not, is your request that the image not be used in the article? If the latter's the case, I'd recommend that you add User:Nunh-huh and User:Adrian J. Hunter as involved users and notify them, since you have discussed that issue with them at length at Talk:HIV. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes I should have added User:Nunh-huh and User:Adrian J. Hunter but since they are now clearly aware of the discussion I will consider them added.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, MsBatfish alerted us. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wow, I just did a lot of reading just in order to try to make an educated comment on this matter. My conclusions are:

1) This isn't the right forum if you are requesting deletion of the image entirely. However I don't see adequate rationale for deleting the image anyway.

2) The Way-back machine is not a source, it is a snapshot of the source. It is an archiving service that preserves web pages published by others and its use does not somehow invalidate the source of the image. Using archived materials is a frequently done and accepted practice on Wikipedia.

3) I don't think the caption of the image needs to be changed from "Diagram" to "Theoretical Diagram". See diagram for more information about what diagrams are. It is not purporting to be a photograph or an exact true-to-life depiction. MsBatfish (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

1) I'm not here to request deletion of the image, I already did that in the appropriate forum. Your insight into whether or not the image has "adequate rationale" for deletion needs to be expressed as comments pertaining to the reason for deletion request - unreliable sources. 2) "The Way-back machine is not a source..." - You said it. And yet images posted within Wikipedia articles are required to have a reliable source. The NIH might meet that standard but Wayback Machine does not according to the rules of WP:IRS. If there is an image currently published by NIH on their website then why isn't that image's reference being used for the image on in the HIV Wikipedia article? 3) The image caption is not the issue being discussed here.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is the third forum DavoDavoDavo has petitioned with this issue. He states he "would like a definitive judgement regarding whether or not the image meets the requirements for reliable sources". But he's obtained that judgment twice already, once on the article's talk page, and once more when he nominated the image for deletion on Commons. To waste more peoples' time on this issue because he doesn't like the two previous results seems to border on bad faith. I trust he will simply accept the third judgment as final. To avoid more people having to do a lot of reading: the diagram of the structure of HIV included in the HIV article is not in the least bit controversial. Such diagrams (never labeled as "theoretical") have appeared in the medical and scientific literature from shortly after the time the HIV virus was discovered in 1984. (Such a diagram appears, for example, in The Medical Management of AIDS by Merle A. Sande & Paul Volberding; earlier examples can probably be found.) Since that time, photomicrographs (a link to which was provided to DavoDavoDavo on the HIV talk page) have demonstrated that the structure of the virus as depicted in the diagram is correct. Similar diagrams are ubiquitous and routinely appear in medical textbooks. And such diagrams have appeared in the popular press as well as in the scientific press. For example, Gallo's diagram appeared in his January 1987 article in the popular magazine Scientific American. The fact that we provide a link to NIH is a matter of convenience; whether the link is dead or live, the diagram's source is not a matter of controversy, except, apparently, to those who want to convince Wikipedia's readers that there's some doubt about the cause of AIDS. (Those interested will find an assortment of similar images by searching for the key words "HIV" and "structure" in Google images). The only significant difference between our illustration and theirs: ours is drawn by a WIkipedian who has released it under the GFDL. - Nunh-huh 10:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You claim that I have already "obtained... judgment twice already... " in this matter but you can't show me where my concern has been answered. Several people have responded but their responses have not addressed my expressed concern - source reliability. Are you prone to telling lies? You are trying to misconstrue my intentions. Isn't that 'bad faith'? You remind us that the diagram is not "controversial", but to what end? I'm not concerned about whether or not the image is controversial nor have I expressed any such thing. You claim that you have provided links to photomicrographs on the HIV talk page but all you actually provided was links to copyright free images for cell phone wallpaper. Is this what you call honesty? You claim that you provide a link to the NIH website as a matter of convenience but there is no link at all to the NIH, only to Wayback Machine. Honesty? You imply that I'm trying to convince Wikipedia's readers that there's some doubt about the cause of AIDS but my intentions here have been clearly stated and they concern the reliability of the source of the image. Honesty? Could you please restrict your comments to the current discussion - so as to not waste other people's time? DavoDavoDavo (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that you have yet to persuade a single Wikipedian that you have valid concerns, all that remains for the current discussion is for you to say "thank you" and move on. So as to not waste other people's time. - Nunh-huh 06:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know about that, though. He went to Commons for deletion, the appropriate forum, though he was unsuccessful. He went to the talk page for removal of an extant image from the page, the appropriate forum, though he was unsuccessful. (Not sure which order those were in, but I don't suppose it matters either way.) Coming here was also an appropriate choice, as far as I can tell, based on the instructions at the top of the page. Not the way I would have gone about getting a third opinion (or fourth or ... whatever), but still an appropriate option. Needless to say, unless I've greatly misunderstood his rationale, he's going to be unsuccessful here as well, but I don't think he was forum shopping. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Side point: Wikipedia:Third opinion is for disputes between only two users. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 16:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

To be sure. I probably shouldn't have linked there, since I meant the term in its colloquial sense, not in its Wikipedia sense. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, an appropriate choice for the "remove" chain of requests, inappropriate for the "delete" one. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not shopping. Exhausting. We will have to see if he chooses a fourth go-round. (The order, if it matters, was HIV talk page, Commons deletion request, followed by dispute resolution.) - Nunh-huh 12:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Actually this is the fourth forum. The order was Talk:HIV in these two sections, then Commons deletion request, then Commons village pump, then here. So now 11 editors have spent their time responding to someone who has stated he's here to push he represents a group that advocates a discredited fringe ideology. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 16:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Your animosity towards me is showing through the way you try to misdirect people in this discussion. I have *never* said that I am pushing a fringe ideology. The comments that I made on the HIV talk page were meant to express that you are not the only volunteer giving of their time for the benefit of others. I would ask that you keep your presuppositions and your prejudices to yourself and stick to the topic at hand - an issue that *you* have not been able to address so far.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was careless in my wording above, for which I apologise. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't count COM:VP because the result of that discussion was "wrong forum," not a substantive answer. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wayback machine is an accurate snapshot of the NIH image in the same way that microfiche or any other physical archives of a source are accurate. Myself and others have presented multiple sources supporting that the NIH/wayback image as valid and similar to multiple images from reliable sources. DavoDavoDavo's point has been refuted, they just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -Optigan13 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• If DavoDavoDavo feels so strongly that he needs a live link, he's free to use the current image locations on the NIH site and draw a free image based on them (photo, small diagram, large diagram). Until he decides to do that, citing the image on which our illustration was actually based remains correct. - Nunh-huh 22:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

My perspective as a previously uninvolved editor (administrator):

Now that DavoDavoDavo's replied to the various questions and comments, I think we have a clearer picture of the situation. Part of the picture is that there were/are a few simple misunderstandings of fact on DavoDavoDavo's part, with regards to the Wayback Machine and editorial guidelines; both I and other editors have addressed those above.

The main, continuing, issue seems to be that DavoDavoDavo wants the image removed because of style concerns, not because of verifiability or accuracy concerns. DavoDavoDavo hasn't challenged the credibility of the NIH (in fact, he endorses it) or of the particular image; his strongest argument on that front is that removal or change of a page from/on the NIH's website might reflect a change in the NIH's stance. Such a position is unpersuasive - you challenge a reliable source with another reliable source, not with speculation. No such reliable sources have been provided thus far. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Natalie Wood

• Talk:Natalie Wood (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Total frustration has brought me here. After being told not to (based on talk-page guidelines), editor MathewTownsend insists copying and pasting large portions of discussion from other talk pages and noticeboards on the talk page for the Natalie Wood article. He is now reverting/edit warring over the content. I have tried to get him to understand policy on this by providing links to talk page guidelines (along with guidelines and policy on other various matters he demonstrates a lack of undertstanding on). There is a plethora of issues with this editor, but for now, the article talk page cluttering is the most recent, and I believe, most disruptive. While I probably haven't handled all disputes with the editor in the best way, I would like to see others attempt to work with him because I've become ineffective in doing so with him (and because I'm out of patience). His level of non-AGF and incivility has increased over the last 24 hours. I tried to get some advice on this at WQA yesterday - to no avail. Other related places to look at the progression of things in regard to the disruptive talk page editing can be seen in the following links:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Lhb1239 (talk · contribs)
• MathewTownsend (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Talk:Natalie Wood}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I have posted numerous times on this editor's talk page - including edit warring warnings. Nothing seems to phase him.

• How do you think we can help?

Other voices. He seems to think I am out to get him (which I'm not) so anything I say to him is akin to talking to a brick wall at this point.

Lhb1239 (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Natalie Wood discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

• I'm confused. Lhb1239 has filed multiple complains against me at once.

• At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring[12] - clearing me of edit warring, as editing own comments is not considered a "revert".[13]
• At Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance[14] Here the editor responding has supported me.
• And here at this noticeboard.
• He has plastered my talk page with 29 warnings and threatens in the last 24 hours or so. e.g.[15]
• He has reverted my efforts to clarify my own comments on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[16] e.g.[17][18]
• What should I do? All I have done is follow the advice of others.
• I asked a question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and was advised to ask the question at WP:BLPN[19] which I did.
• I asked at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests if it was ok to [redact] my comments on a discussion page if no one had responded to them. I was told it there were no special rules preventing that.[20] Yet Lhb1239 has edit warred over my comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[21][22]
• He has reverted my attempts to pull together comments at Talk:Natalie Wood[23][24]
• I really don't understand what is going on. Please advise. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The above statement that I have edit warred at the Reliable sources noticeboard is a misrepresentation. Actually, it's MathewTownsend who has edit warred there and currently has an Edit Warring/3RR report filed on him (see here). As far as whose advice he follows: so far, that's proven to be selective as he seems to only follow the advice of those who tell him what he wants to hear. Hence, the filing of this report/request for assistance. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Edit warring complaint closed. This Edit warring complaint#MathewTownsend reported by User:Lhb1239 was closed with no action taken.[25]
• I am receiving support on Talk:Natalie Wood. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Mathew - none of this is about winning. If that's what you think Wikipedia will be for you, you're in for a huge disappointment. Wikipedia editors are fickle. Those who support you today can (and will) just as quickly throw you under the bus. Being here is supposed to be about building an encyclopedia - you might wnat to try focusing on that, not how many "supporters" you think you have. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That is an extremely unhelpful comment. The community is tolerant of venting, but if it continues much longer, it will become necessary for a more focused discussion regarding a possible interaction ban. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And your edit summary, "Please drop it" when I asked a direct question in all sincereity (that wasn't answered) was extremely unhelpful as well. As far as an interaction ban being necessary - not hardly. I'm a grown up and can control my interactions with other editors just fine. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a mediator/clerk here at DRN. As it says in the instructions, above, DRN is for content disputes and only handles conduct disputes when they're marginal and incidental to a content dispute. The Dispute overview section mentions a content dispute, but all the specific statements and responses here are about conduct. Unless the parties choose to stop talking about the conduct issues and bring forward and discuss a content dispute, I will close this discussion as being inappropriate for this forum. If, on the other hand, they desire additional dispute resolution on the conduct issues, it would appear to me on a quick look that RFC/U or ANI are probably your next stop. Unless someone wants to bring forward a content dispute in the next 24 hours, I will close this thread. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Government

• Wikipedia:Government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

This proposal was soundly rejected eight months ago. I marked it as failed and hatted/closed discussion on the talk page. The proposals author, who appears to have a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, has reverted all that and insists it is a work in progress despite the fact that it was strongly rejected and before today had sat unedited for many months. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Count Iblis (talk · contribs)
• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

yes

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Wikipedia:Government}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Smacked him with a trout. [26] His response, more bullshit about it being a work in progress [27]. It's been roundly rejected on general principles, no amount of modification of the specifics is going to change that. The Count's denial of reality is staggering. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• How do you think we can help?

A consensus on whether this is a failed proposal or not would be useful. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Government discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

A six month stale proposal which has not been accepted has obviously failed and I've tagged the article as such. Gerardw (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

So far there hasn't even been a proposal that can be formally rejected. What has happened is that I started out with a general idea that needs to be developed further with some input from other editors. I did take into account some of the comments, but it needs more work. So, it is still a proposal, but the idea is that editors should work constructively on improving it so that it can be considered by the community for adoption or rejection. If editors right now don't like it, they can write why not. But in the state it is now, one shouldn't consider the feedback to be up or down votes.

It is true that it has gone a bit stale, but then I don't have a lot of time for Wikipedia, the time I do have goes into watching the 200+ articles on my watchlist and answering questions on the Ref. Desk. Then what time there as for policy discussions was used up on the discussions about "not truth" on the WP:V talk page the last few months.

And if we consider the events at WP:V, we have to admit that we already have a sort of government of a few Admins who are now deciding what to do with Blueboar's proposal. So, saying that it's a non-starter is just an opinion that doesn't even reflect current reality on Wikipedia. So, the basic idea cannot be dismissed as a non-starter. The proposal would just formalize current practice. But, of course, as it is written now, it's not comprehensive enough.

And considering what we've seen on WP:V with 1/3 saying to 2/3 of editors that they don't have enough consensus to implement their proposal, so we should stick with the present version (which was never put to a vote, which likely never would have gotten even a majority), this calls into question if non-regulars like me can even get involved in the policy pages. Another proposal of mine WP:ESCA, which is currently an essay, was effectively sunk by a small group of regulars who construed it as some threat to their Wiki-ideology, even though it pragmatically discusses real issues that come up with the certain type of scientific articles.

In conclusion, the proposal is still open and under development. It should not be labeled as a failed proposal at this time, that would be like a journal rejecting a paper for publication that I haven't even submitted yet. Count Iblis (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Beeblbrox, would you like to comment about the explicitly hostile stance you've taken towards this proposal (for example your uncivil edit summary back in May) ? Count Iblis, is there a specific reason why the page laid idle for so long without any changes based on the improvement? Could either of you please link to the VP thread where this was discussed for failure or given time to improve? I will look at this some more and have a few more thoughts in a few hours. Hasteur (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You tagged it proposal 10 May 2011 [28]. So it's not reasonable to say it's not a proposal. Gerardw (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• @Hasteur: I don't think that my attitude or opinion changes the obvious fact that this proposal was rejected a long time ago, but if you are referring to this edit my hostility was aimed at the outright lies that were at that time on the page. Count Iblis is so lost in this idea that he wrote about events that he imagined, that never really transpired. I explained all at the time, see Wikipedia talk:Government#removed text. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• @Count Iblis: You seriously need to wake up and smell the coffee. Nobody has worked with you to improve this idea because nobody agrees with it and it has no chance, ,none, as in zero, zilch, nada, of ever being implemented. You were told as much several times back in May, but you seem to have completely lost all touch with reality where this proposal is concerned. Snap out of it man. Your idea was rejected, not because you got the details wrong but because the very core idea is contrary to how Wikipedia works and it would create an immense new bureaucracy. It was clear eight months ago to everyone else. If you want to continue to pretend this is something other than a rejected proposal I again suggest you userfy it. You can fill it with crazy nonsense that never happened to your heart's desire there, but if it is going to remain in WP space it belongs to the project and the project has said the idea is rejected. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Technocracy, Technocracy movement

• Technocracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Technocracy movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

User 'Newuser2011' is attempting what seems to be a largely arbitrary edit of the summary of the Technocracy article such that it becomes contradictory and difficult to understand.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Newuser2011 (talk · contribs)
• 126.159.109.39 (talk · contribs)

This user does not appear to have a genuine interest in contributing to Wikipedia, but rather a specific agenda towards this topic.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Added a question regarding editing bias on the users talk page. Have tried undoing the article.

• How do you think we can help?

Provide a third party assessment of the changes Newuser2011 is insisting upon, and deciding whether or not the previous content was sufficient.

126.159.109.39 (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"Technocracy", "Technocracy movement" discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

I am the one who flagged it as contradictory. The previous summary said "economists would be in charge in a technocracy" which is very contradictory since the whole point of Technocracy is that it is explicitly anti-economist, just take a look at any Technocracy information for a confirmation of that. That distinction and the reason for it must be explained clearly in this article. Also I removed some of the irrelevant information about socialism and socialist theory which looks like advertising and does not belong in this article. I don't have any more agenda than a group of editors who identify themselves as economists repeatedly deleting factual information about an anti-economist organization and it's anti-economist body of thought without any justification. All my edits are factually correct and completely in accord with Wikipedia guidelines.Newuser2011 (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And generally sourced to in-universe sources? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see the merits in the update Newuser2011 is pushing for. Side-by-side the long standing summary seems to fit best. The summary being pushed for by Newuser2011 appears to be a discussion of the etymology of the word, rather than a general summary. 126.159.109.39 (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Landeryou

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Andrew Landeryou (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? There are a number of problems with the article as it was until previously. Details of the subject's life that were negative (like his well-documented bankruptcy) were deleted. The fact that his bankruptcy is now discharged (highly relevant given that he publishes a website that makes highly controversial claims about people) was deleted. The subject's birthdate was removed and the year changed (according to publicly-searchable records of ITSA, his date of birth is 19 September 1969, and yet the page keeps being changed to 1970). The wording was changed from neutral POV in the subject's favour - from "blogger" to "journalist", although he's the only one who describes himself as such. Dubious material like claimed website hits were added. Two paragraphs were dedicated to "stories" he claims he "broke". The material in the quote boxes was more advertising than encyclopaedic (it wouldn't be surprising to find on the back cover if he wrote a book) and duplicated more balanced quotes included in the article itself. And when I restored this material - not originally created by me, but well referenced - suddenly a series of anonymous IPs kept reverting it. No discussion on the talk page, just reversion. Then the page was locked to registered users only, and a user "Caterann" was suddenly created to delete the material. We need an editor to formally tidy up the article, and make sure all the relevant material is included, and that as soon as we all stop looking at it it doesn't immediately get deleted, as looks like having happened after the last edit dispute on this article. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Garth M (talk · contribs) Caterann (talk · contribs) Anonymous IPs. (talk · contribs) Caterann has not discussed any edits - just simply reverted them. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Andrew Landeryou}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I have raised the issue on the talk page, and it's been ignored. I have also raised it on Caterann's talk page. How do you think we can help? fix the article and then lock it. Garth M (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Andrew Landeryou discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.