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
Naseem Hamed	New	Mac Dreamstate (t)	7 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 22 hours	The MK (t)	1 days, 19 hours
Primerica	Closed	TermLifeOG (t)	3 days, 11 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	3 days, 10 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	3 days, 10 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 19:46, 2 June 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)

Flag of Western Sahara

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. 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: Deletion as patent nonsense, as given the subject is a geographic territory, it has no flag Disambiguation, or a two-item list, containing the two flags used in the region (see example) 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: Redirect Flag of Western Sahara to Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Include a hatnote at the top of Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic leading to Flag of Morocco. 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: 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) 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) Tach - That initial RfC at Western Sahara you pointed to is really relevant and helpful. Thanks. It should be noted that this exact discussion, concerning which flag should represent Western Sahara, was had in 2005. That RfC had a reasonable response and seemed to suggest the most desirable result was that no flag should be used, or failing that, that both flags should be used. There was very little support for using either the Moroccan or SADR flag alone. I argue that Wikipedia:Western Sahara Infobox/Vote is our best demonstration of consensus on this issue, and that until someone demonstrates otherwise, we should yield to the opinion held in that RfC. NickCT (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure which discussion you think we've been having, but it isn't about which flag represents "Western Sahara"; it's about a flag long known by the name "flag of Western Sahara", where it goes, and what other information to be included is appropriate. Perhaps this misunderstanding is at the root of this dispute. What the vote you've referred to was on is clearly stated in the very first line of the page. Furthermore you appear to not understand what consensus is. I'll give you a hint: it isn't what some people six years ago decided about something else. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Hey Reisio, how's this for a hint. Consensus isn't what you want to be. "decided about something else" is clearly a gross mischaracterization. They were deciding which flag should be used in association with Western Sahara. As are we. Sure it was six years ago. Feel free to demonstrate that consensus has changed. NickCT (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC) I think Reisio is alluding to the fact that because this is a debate over an article title (or redirect), we have rules that come into effect that weren't relevant to the 2005 discussion - namely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. Although at first glance the debate may seem to be the same, because of these rules the issues are slightly different this time round. As we have at least one editor that is not in favour of redirecting to a flag section in Western Sahara or similar, I again recommend having another RfC so that all the issues can be discussed in an organized fashion. I can have a go at drafting such an RfC if you want - let me know if this would be acceptable or not. In any case, it definitely looks as if we won't be solving this issue here, so I will go ahead and close the thread unless there are any objections. The final choice about the next form of dispute resolution you want to pursue is something for the participants to decide, however. As I said before, your basic choices at this stage are RfC or MedCom. Let me know if you have any more questions about these. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC) If that's what we're deciding, this discussion has no point. The article Western Sahara doesn't have a flag on it, and I'm not aware of anyone here that wants to change that (or that wants to change it and thinks they can actually get away with it). Would you like to talk about anything else? Like maybe what this dispute is over? ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC) @Reisio - This dispute is about what flag is most appropriately associated with Western Sahara, and was the 2005 discussion. Your only argument here seems to be commonname. WP:V trumps WP:COMMONNAME. You cannot verify the SADR flag is the flag of Western Sahara, b/c it isn't. If we were to indiscriminately redirect article titles to the articles whose subject those titles were most often applied to, we'd end up redirecting things like Ignoramus to Idiot (or perhaps your user page), instead of what Ignoramus verifiably is (i.e. a 17th century play). NickCT (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC) @Strad - I said earlier I was for an RfC, and I still am. It would be nice if you worked on one, but failing that, I will see if I can work up the motivation to do it. Let's give all parties a chance to comment on draft RfCs before launching them. NickCT (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Now, now, let's avoid the personal attacks. There's nothing that gets in the way of resolving disputes quite like focusing on commentators rather than content. Also, don't forget that your contributions will always be preserved for everyone to see, and if this dispute ever ends up going to one of our conduct dispute resolution venues, then there is every chance that the diffs could get dragged up. I'm glad that you're still in favour of the RfC idea, and it looks increasingly like that is how we will be going ahead here. I'll leave this thread open until tomorrow for others to comment, and then I'll close it and have a go at writing a draft version. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:05, 9 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.

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)

How do we proceed here? Vamsisv (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

People from all kinds of ideologies supporting Telangana movement; from extreme right wing parties to extreme left parties like (Maoists). Leadership of Telangan movement are moderates. Even then for the benefit of the reader I have included the some media statementmets regarding Maoists in the article at the insistance of Vamsisv. But creating seperate section for this irrelevant topic is inappropriate and misleads the reader of the article. Even Police chief of the state declared that there is no active involvement of Maoists in Telangana movement. Ramcrk (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, for your reading convenience I'm repeating my stand, but you are continuing to ignore what I'm saying. This section is not only to indicate Maoists involvement in the movement (which is very diff from any other side's involvement) but also the RISE of maoist influence DUE to the movement. It does indeed deserve a separate section. Your argument is like saying - There are several other movements for separate states, so why should we create another page for T movement. Think about it. Vamsisv (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Rise and fall of Maoist movement should be discussed in Maoist movement page. Not in Telangana movement page. Only issues which is important to Telangana movement should be discussed in Telangana movement article. By including this section readers will get the impression that Maoism is big issue in Telangana. It is not. You can argue that rise of Maoism/Terrorism due to poverty. Should we include Maoism/Terrorism in the poverty article? Ramcrk (talk) 08:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion will not go anywhere. I'm hoping someone can give a better perspective here and resolve this longstanding issue. Admins, request your help here. Vamsisv (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Request Admins/Reviewers to go through all the links/references in the section. There is a clear case for this section since there are multiple things related between Maoist Movement & T Movemement. One is the support of Maoists for the movement, Second is how T movement is helping to fuel the Maoist movement, Third is how many protagonists in the T movement are promoting Maoist agenda. Latest resource in this regard is this link. Vamsisv (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Montrose Star

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. 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) 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.

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)

Unless you've been planting trees lately I doubt that anyone would have any reason to "thank you" for anything. You desperately need to get The Truth into your life.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 06:31, 11 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)

Okay, so it is not the responsibility of the writer of the article to maintain the currency of the article's sources. Got it. Out of date archived webpages are acceptable sources. Got it. I don't agree with the idea, in fact it is potentially quite dangerous, but if that's the way things are done at Wikipedia then who am I to argue. If I understand you correctly, it is the responsibility of contributing readers to propose an update to article content or sources if there is new substantiated information which brings the content or sources into question?DavoDavoDavo (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

USB

• USB (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?

Dispute over naming of article, whether it should be called "USB" or "Universal Serial Bus". Previous placement was at the latter but following move proposal admin RegentsPark judged consensus to be for move despite a clear majority against based on a selective citation of policy. Relevant policy has already been cited in discussion and therefore taken into consideration, however RegentsPark took it upon himself to make a fresh point based on that policy not previously raised in the discussion. By doing do he implicitly involved himself and could not properly then assess the discussion. The central issue of policy is whether the subject is known "almost exclusively" by the shortened form: this is not a test RegentsPark even addressed in his analysis and has not commented upon this in subsequent discussion. Cited reliable sources in the discussion show preference for the longer form and therefore summing up seems even more dubious. Proponents of of move have been repeatedly invited and given more than ample time to counter this assertion but have failed to do so. In the mean time this move continues to have effect without consensus for that change.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• RegentsPark (talk · contribs)
• Thumperward (talk · contribs)
• Jenks24 (talk · contribs)
• R'n'B (talk · contribs)
• W Nowicki (talk · contribs)
• CWenger (talk · contribs)
• Crispmuncher (talk · contribs)
• Music Sorter (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=USB}} --~~~~ 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?

Debate continued on article talk page but impasses reached by repeated failure of proponents of move to cite evidence or engage in meaningful discussion now their preferred position has been taken.

• How do you think we can help?

At the very least it it my hope formal dispute resolution procedures will elicit such responses. If not consideration should be made as to whether admin decision was the correct one based on the available information and cited sources.

Crispmuncher (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

USB discussion

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

Hi there, I'm a mediator are the DRN and aim to help bring this to a resolution. The issues seems to be whether USB is the most common name, whether any other uses of USB are of equal importance and whether Wikipedia policies would allow the use of an acronym in this case. It seems to me that we need to first determine whether USB is the most common name for a Universal Serial Bus, then we can look at whether any other uses are important. If USB is the most common form, then policy would allow the article to be named USB. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is a non-issue. Since the move, only two editors have expressed any significant distaste with the close (the other being M Nowicki, whose second comment of two in said discussion was considerably less strident than the first). CrispMuncher's sole argument is that the evidence presented in favour of the common use argument doesn't meet his personal standards: he hasn't provided any counterevidence, instead relying on an interpretation of the words "almost exclusively" in WP:TITLEFORMAT which doesn't seem to match practice in the wild. Additionally, CrispMuncher, after having continued to dispute the move and being repeatedly refuted by editors in the process, labelled this as "one of the worst admin abuses I have seen here". Rather, it was a strong admin close based on weight of argument against head count. The relative lack of disquiet regarding that (consider that it took the most bitterly opposing editor in said discussion three months to bring it here even though he's been moderatively active, to the tune of >300 edits, throughout) does not suggest that this was a controversial or abusive close. There would certainly be no chance that consensus would favour a move back from the present stable title if enacted today, so this isn't an active dispute. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• I am torn over this. On one hand, I feel that User:RegentsPark's close of the discussion based on a supposed "consensus" was plainly wrong. On the other hand, the issue is really trivial and I don't particularly care whether it is reversed. I am commenting because I am bothered by the way Regent Park has defended his or her actions even after being challenged, and would like to see some discussion of that so that this admin will be more circumspect when closing discussions in the future. The issue is really trivial because the only difference between the two sides is whether Universal Serial Bus should be a redirect to USB, or USB should be a redirect to Universal Serial Bus. Either way, readers who search for either of these terms or who click on a link will see the same article.

There was a discussion, in which I participated and opposed the renaming. The result of the discussion was 2 in favor of renaming, and 5 opposed. RegentsPark closed the discussion and proclaimed that "USB is clearly the common name for this thing." Well, with all due respect, that was exactly the question that we were discussing, and five of us felt that it was not the common name. When challenged, RegentsPark responded with "Bear in mind that these are discussions, not polls, and vote counting is not the way that consensus is determined. (See WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:Consensus.)" I suggest taking a close look at both of those policy pages. WP:NOTAVOTE tells us that polling can be detrimental to the formation of consensus; it points out that the goal of discussions is to develop consensus. It does not suggest anywhere that an administrator can either ignore or impose a consensus that does not exist among involved users. WP:Consensus says "that the decision-making process involves an active effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting community norms." It also says that "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."

I think RegentsPark misconstrued these guidelines as giving the closing editor unrestrained discretion to ignore any views with which he or she does not agree. I don't see the guidelines as allowing that. The issue on which the discussion turned is whether the subject in question is known "almost exclusively" by its abbreviation. Now, if (hypothetically), users had been saying, "well, yes, the thing is known exclusively by its initials, but I don't care and think it ought to be spelled out anyway," then RegentsPark would have been justified in discounting that argument as contrary to the broader consensus established in WP:TITLEFORMAT. But that is not how the discussion took place. Users who opposed the move, including me, stated that they did not believe the use of the acronym was so universal as to meet the fairly limited exception allowed by WP:TITLEFORMAT. That is a question of fact, and I freely acknowledge that if other users had presented more detailed evidence on the use of the abbreviation before the discussion was closed, I might have been persuaded to change my mind. Basically, RegentsPark just decided that the majority of the users participating in the discussion were wrong about this factual question (how the term "USB" is used in the real world), and so their arguments were "weaker" than the pro-move arguments. In reality, both sides were equally valid in terms of Wikipedia policies; it just boiled down to an "is too -- is not" argument about whether the abbreviation is used widely enough to fall within that policy.

Finally, I suggest that RegentsPark violated WP:NOTVOTE by shutting down the discussion prematurely instead of allowing time for the involved editors to present additional facts and perhaps find common ground.

Apologies to all for going on at such length over such a trivial issue, but the process bothers me even though the outcome doesn't. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerkish note: Just for the record, also see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/26 November 2011/Universal Serial Bus. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Chris. I agree that the issue seems to have gone stale and is not an active dispute. In closing the recent Mediation Cabal case, Steven Zhang suggested that, if anyone still opposed the current page name, a requested move should take place to determine consensus according to policy; I would concur with that judgement. Therefore, I will close this, advising anyone wishing to pursue the matter to heed Steven's advice. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for that premature closure. I opted to close the discussion before anyone else contributed; however, there seems to now be discussion taking place. My poor internet connection meant I missed that. That was my mistake - I apologise for that. I've reopened this and will allow full discussion to take place. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the proponents of the move have consistently failed to back up their points is the reason the debate has gone stale, and as indicated above this is the very reason this has been filed. I have repeatedly attempted to elicit further evidence without success. Giving editors time is not the same as conceding the point.

I am aware that I can of course file a new move request at any time. I have chosen not to and this is a considered position for two principal reasons:

• Firstly, this was moved based on a disputed consensus. If it is found theat there is in fact no consensus the move should be reversed in favour of the previous status quo. If a new move request is made the presumption is again that the status quo remains, but this time the new status quo based on that same improper judgment.
• Secondly, this is an issue that goes beyond merely what a particular article is called. I feel RegentsPark has been selective in interpretation of policy and has not properly addressed the concerns raised on the talk page. I will be explicit here and note that I am not suggesting any malice or the deliberate advancement of a particular position on his or her part. However, when issues of admin oversight and accountability are raised, I believe those are worthy of thorough review regardless of the underlying issue. Again, this is an issue that would simply be left ignored by a simple filing of a move request. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• You asked for evidence that the predominant use was of the abbreviation. Multiple editors provided examples, both anecdotal and statistical. That you were dissatisfied with the presented evidence is not in itself proof that it was inadequate. As to the idea that the discussion went stale due to inactivity on behalf of proponents of the move, the last evidence provided was on behalf of the proponents and seems (at least from the POV of the editor who provided it, i.e. me) to explicitly address the demand made of it (it is an assertion by an authoritative secondary source backing up the assertion of predominant use). Your response to this appears to have been to stick your fingers in your ears for six weeks before shopping for a better venue. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit I did not judge that reference worthy of a response. Rightly or wrongly I perceived the tone of your remarks as sarcastic. However, one example does not indicate anything in relation to the almost exclusive test. Indeed, the fact the author felt the need to use the full form before introducing the acronym itself speaks volumes. As for "statistical" methods, Google is not a reliable source as was noted before those figures were advanced and you've been around here long enough to know what is and isn't acceptable. Even if we were to lower our usual standards those results show the full form in widespread use: remember, we do not need to demonstrate the full form is more common. Rather, the onus is on you to demonstrate that the expanded form is used only rarely. There has been no attempt to demonstrate that. Without that the current assertion that an exception to the general presumption against initialisms applies doesn't stack up. With that the current claim of consensus also fails. I've asked for proper evidence. It hasn't been forthcoming. It is still not forthcoming. You call this forum shopping if you like but I reject that. Where is your evidence? Crispmuncher (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

This is somewhere in between proving a negative ("prove that the long form is not commonly used") and no true Scotsman (multiple pieces of evidence have been rejected on grounds of inadequacy because... well, Crispmuncher deems them inadequate). The problem here is not one of sourcing: it is one of an overlay strict reading of the "nearly exclusive" test which deems anything less universally used than "laser" to be in need of expansion. The guidelines are not normative: they are descriptive of best practice and of documented consensus, and the dominant consensus at this point can clearly be shown (through dozens of page moves like this one) to favour a less strict interpretation which is more compatible with WP:COMMONNAME. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a valid position to adopt; however it certainly isn't one that can simply be asserted and closed on that basis without discussion. It is clear that the default position with respect to policy is to favour the expanded form. There should be a very strong case to over-ride that default presumption. The examples given are not overly helpful (there are only two of them) but let's consider "laser" for a moment. In the case of laser that is by far and away the more familiar term: people are familiar with lasers and what they do without reference to the expanded form which may not even be recognised at first sight. If you ask someone "what is a laser?" you are likely to get back an answer based on what it is and what it does, the acronym expansion is likely to be a secondary detail given if at all. That isn't the case the for USB, where the full form has much greater usage, and greater recognition. A simple explanation what USB is may amount to little more than an expansion of the abbreviation. These are things that are qualitatively different between USB and the given examples. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

• Got a note about this. To be honest, I don't feel very "involved" – I made one comment in June and have never been back. As is probably obvious from my vote at the RM, I agree with RegentPark's closure (and indeed commend him for it, as many admins are afraid to make closures against the weight of numbers, despite WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:CONSENSUS and so on). Anyway, I still believe the article should be at "USB" as it is clearly the common name and is analogous to {{NATO]], Laser, etc. I don't think anyone has disputed that, though I do agree with R'n'B that perhaps myself or Chris should have provided more evidence, even though we thought it was incredibly obvious. Anyway, seeing as this was closed five months ago, my suggestion would be to just start a new RM where it can be fully hashed out and closed by a different uninvolved admin. Jenks24 (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't really have much to say here except what I said in my close of the original move discussion. Consensus is not based on vote counting but on the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. If the editors involved in a discussion are not able to agree on where the consensus lies, the determination is made by any uninvolved editor in good standing. I evaluated the arguments in my close (see particularly the elaboration) and, on rereading all that I think I did a pretty good job. I'm definitely not an involved editor and, hopefully, am in good standing. Given these two factors, I believe my close was proper and acceptable. Finally, I'm not sure why I'm labelled an involved party here. If the dispute is about the article title, I have no interest in the matter. If there is evidence of misuse of my admin tools, then this is not a dispute resolution situation but rather something that should be taken up at WP:ANI. It is unclear to me which particular issue is the focus of this DR and it would be helpful if that were clarified. --regentspark (comment) 15:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN (but see the important disclaimer at the end of this note), I'm having trouble seeing what benefit additional discussion is going to have here. If this is about RegentsPark's conduct as a sysop, then this forum is expressly not for things that are primarily conduct disputes and, as he says, it needs to go to WP:ANI, if it goes anywhere at all. If it's about the page move, then there's not been any new substantial discussion about it for months and it needs to go back to the article talk page for further discussion or for a new move request. or both. Frankly, just off the top of my head the current title — USB — seems to be correct per snowy common sense as well as for the reasons cited by RegentsPark in his original and supplemental closing notes, but that's just my opinion. Disclaimer: I may not be regarded as entirely neutral in this matter as I count RegentsPark among my friends and he was one of the co-nominators at my (failed) RfA. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediator comment - This discussion seems to be about two main issues: the name of the article and RegentsPark's conduct in closing the requested move. As DRN is for content issues only, I would ask that editors refrain from discussing RegentsPark's conduct, motives or anything else (unless directly linked to a content issue). If conduct is an issue, I advise taking it to WP:ANI. I agree with the sentiment that this debate had gone stale and DRN is not the best place; however, as discussion is already underway, I feel it would be excessively bureaucratic to close the discussion (if another mediator disagrees, it is to their discretion as to whether they close it). However, we do need constructive discussion here. A lot of convincing evidence has been provided to suggest that USB is the most common name; as yet, the counter-evidence has been insufficient. If anyone can give actual evidence to the contrary (not criticisms of the quality of evidence which, in total, seems sufficient), please do so. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Coming in late. I have mostly retired from Wikipedia, partially due to time-wasting disussions like this. The guidelines clearly state to "Avoid abbreviations" and the exceptions do not apply, since even the official group's page spells it out, as well as other reliable sources. Nothing to do with "common name". Especially since in computer technology "common" names change so quickly. Just a matter of time and the acronym will be most commonly used for something else. That is why a "no consensus" close would have been the correct one. But I would suggest to make changes to Wikipedia that will last, not ones that will soon be undone. W Nowicki (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've started a discussion regarding rewording the guideline in question at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Weakening the wording of WP:ACRONYMTITLE, referencing this discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Top Chef (season 8)

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. Top Chef (season 8) (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? In the TV show Top Chef 8, in episode "The final supper" the words "Richard, you are the winner" was not said. Therefore one editor User:Drmargi claims that the show is the ultimate source and Richard can not be declarde the winner. In the next episode it was clearly stated that Richard was the winner, and there are primary and secondary sources stating that he did win. I therefore suggest that it should be stated on the page that he did win. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Drmargi (talk · contribs) Stefan (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=Top Chef (season 8)}} --~~~~ 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? See talk page, about 75 edits, 8 months. Talk:Top_Chef_(season_8)#No_winner_in_last_supper.3F.3F How do you think we can help? Give second persons opinion on what policies say on topic, primary and secondary sources. --Stefan talk 04:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Top Chef (season 8) discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The problem with Stefan's version of events is that he is trying to create a scenario that allows him to say that something that did not happen in Episode 15 in fact, did, based on his interpretation (key word) of what he saw, the events of Episode 16 and the network's blog. Everything he cites can be documented as part of the proceedings of Episode 16, but none of it accurately describes what we actually saw in Episode 16. What he cannot say, no matter how he tries to spin events and sources, is that Richard was declare the winner in Episode 15 because it didn't happen. There's no possible way, moreover, to provide a reliable source to verify that something happened that simply did not. If editors would step back from the fan aspect of the show and simply look at it from the point of view of recounting of events, it's clear as glass, and there should be no dispute. But most can't, and they're determined to use outside and secondary sources to say the Emperor has the finest clothes in the land, when in fact, he has no clothes. End of story. Drmargi (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC) I did not hear the judges declare Richard the winner (in that episode), but I saw him win and I heard him being declared the winner in the next episode. But this is my interpretation, yours is different, both is WP:OR and that is why we should not do OR and use sources instead, I have multiple sources, you have your interpretation of the topic, what I want here is someone else to state that the policies state that we should interpret topics or use sources, simple. Read WP:VNT, if we had a emperor and all the most reliable sources stated that he had the finest clothes wikipedia policies state that we should write that he has the fines clothes, sorry I do not like that but that is how wikipedia works, and most of the time it is the best. --Stefan talk 09:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Clerkish note: I am a mediator/clerk here at DRN. Three things: First, is this (let's call it Edit A) what is in question here, or has that been partially settled and only this (Edit B) still in issue? Both are still issues. --Stefan talk 02:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Second, considering the wall-'o-text at the article talk page, could someone please provide a list here of the sources, with links to them, which are being claimed to be reliable sources for the "Richard wins in 15" assertion? We know the episode itself is being claimed as a source, but are there others as well? References: Wall street journal 'blog' (secondary) Bravotv (Primary) Bravotv (primary). Third, is there a place on the Web where Episode 15 can be freely viewed (and where its existence there is not an open and obvious copyright violation)? Without that, it's going to be really hard for us here at DRN to help with the episode-as-source claim. There used to be a link at bravotv site, but I cannot find it now, the link did only work in the US. There is no argument that the judges did not say "Richard you are the winner", those words are said in all other episodes, but not in this. The issue is that since this was not verbally stated in that episode, should we use other sources and if so are they of 'higher' quality that interpreting the show itself. --Stefan talk 02:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Comments on Edit A and B Edit A is a revert that reverts 2 things, both the wording about the episode and the table. Edit B is a revert back of the table that have been stable on the page for 2 months and since drmargi claimed that she could do BRD reverts, I tried to claim the same. The episode description have been discussed a lot on the talk page and boils down to that Richard was not declared winner with words in that episode, therefore Drmargi claims that he should not be stated as winner. The table talks about the whole show and in the next episode Richard was declared the winner for the previous episode, therefore I tried to come to an agreement that the table could be updated (see the "baby steps" comments on talk page) I got no response and did that change long time ago, now drmargi reverted again, I still do not know what is wrong with updating the table. --Stefan talk 02:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC) More questions for both editors: @Drmargi: Do you disagree that Richard was unmistakeably identified — note that I do not say "declared" — in Episode 16 as the winner of Episode 15? @Stefan: You say "in the next episode Richard was declared the winner for the previous episode"; how was he so declared? In speech, on a leader board, or how? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Padma said something like "Richard, you WON the last challenge, so you get to pick first" --Stefan talk 23:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Comment from someone somewhat involved I came upon the page accidentally while looking for the current season, and I noticed the disputed tag. Considering that's an absurd tag to have on the page of a TV show, I decided to read on. This "discussion" has been going on for nearly nine months with most involved parties agreeing that Richard won, but Drmargi persists in reverting anyone who edits the page and insists that the absurd tag remain. Here are some key points: Drmargi seems to be making the issue personal by falsely assuming that anyone who believes the various sources declaring Richard as the winner are simply fans who aren't holding the article to an encyclopedic standard, going so far as to state it is a "fan hivemind" disagreeing with her. Drmargi's argument is that the word "winner" wasn't said during the episode. Well, the show does not use a standard phrase for every episode to announce the winner. It was clear, based on the format of this particular episode, that Richard was the winner of the elimination challenge. For anyone who had difficulty determining this very obvious fact, it was stated multiple times afterwards by various sources close to the show. As noted above, while the words "Richard, you are the winner," or "the winner is Richard," were not stated during this episode: his dish was chosen as the best and he was the first to move on to the finals, the show's website lists him as the winner on the season's scorecard [9] the show's website lists his dish as the winner [10] Chef Rick Moonen recreates "Richard Blaise's winning dish" [11] Gail Simmons (a judge on the show) posted an interview of her by BravoTV.com on her blog, during which she wrote: "He did the best without question." [12] Wall Street Journal blog recapping the episode states, "Richard is given the win." [13] on the following episode, Padma says something along the lines of, "Richard, as the winner of the last challenge, you get to pick first." Furthermore, of the 14 people who have taken part in the wall-o-text, 11 believe Richard was the winner while only 3 believe there was no winner. Winner: Stephan, Le Duf, Norbytherobot, HumilityOnWiki-IWish, 24.25.191.242, 173.54.3.124, 140.247,153.237, DragonofFire, Malpine, myself, and GerardW. No winner: Drmargi, 199.36.244.11, and 121.73.75.243. Lara 02:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC) As I noted above, I am a mediator/clerk here at DRN. I realize that Drmargi has not answered my last question asked above, but I see from this edit that she tacitly admits that Padma, the show's host, referred to Richard as the winner of Episode 15 in Episode 16. That, in my opinion, is a sufficient, if primary, source for calling Richard the winner of that episode in the article. (The fact that the show based an action on that identification, i.e. by allowing him to go first in Episode 16, confirms that this was not simply a passing statement or chance comment by Padma, but that confirmation is not necessary to make the source reliable.) I also am of the opinion that the listing on the show's official website is also, and independently, a sufficient reliable (if again primary) source to call him the winner. (I express no opinion about the other offered sources or about the question of whether the use of the term winner has been allowed by consensus.) It does not appear that Episode 16 had occurred the last time this issue went to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard though the scorecard was up on the show's website at that time. Independent editor Nuujinn has already opined in that discussion that there were already enough reliable sources to identify Richard as the winner of Episode 15. If the controversy continues after this DRN discussion, I would suggest taking the issue back to RSN for an evaluation of the additional sources and, should that fail or prove unsatisfactory to anyone, then to the Mediation Cabal. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC) I didn't answer your question for the simple reason I didn't discern a question directed at me, nor did I have time for more than a couple quick looks in the last few days. But never mind: hivemind wins over accuracy, and once again, Wikipedia makes a laughable error, thus furthering its reputation as, well, I don't know what, but not a reliable source for anything but one's amusement. Drmargi (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Comment from someone trying hard not to be involved, (but obviously not hard enough, or I'd just delete it from my Watch List) I really don't want to be involved in this very contentious issue over...Global Warming, Deregulation, appropriate Tax Rates...oh wait, no, Top Chef! But I can't help myself. Just to throw in my part, I too believe the evidence "identified" Richard as the winner. As a compromise back in August I left the Ep 15 alone and adjusted the Ep 16 entry instead to properly reflect the facts that happened in that episode, including Padma's statement. This was undone on Dec 8th, by user: Jennavecia (Lara), understandably because it didn't really make sense to have this in Ep 16 as it was about Ep 15. Personally I'm happy to see it go, as it makes the entry look weird, but without it the Ep 15 entry just looked/(looks) inaccurate. (I have noticed above that the mediator found in favor of Richard being "identified" as the winner in Ep 15 and the Table - so that would make discussion on Ep 16 a moot point if appropriate changes are made). With that said I will attempt to resist my argumentative instincts and bid adieu. With that said, no I won't...some final questions/observations/ramblings: Is this an elaborate experiment by someone doing post doc experimental psychology work. All the back and forth with no real resolution seems like something cruelly manufactured just to test the endurance of human stubbornness or some other cognitive response. Is this your work Milgram? Zimbardo perhaps? Show yourself! (In truth I must recognize WP offers some excellent commentary on the human psyche - even if unintended). I think we must also recognize WP itself as possibly having this intention. It seems eerily like a part of the "Brave New World" Huxley warned us of. From WP's page on the subject, I found some interesting quotes by Neil Postman (comparing BNW and 1984) that seem very relevant: "Huxley feared those who would give us so much [information] that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism...Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance...Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture..." Aaugh! (Charlie Brown scream for affect). Norbytherobot (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC) I may have just fallen in love. XD Lara 05:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Outside view from Chzz Richard was the winner. There's strong support for that, and it is common sense. Add a footnote to mention this, if absolutely necessary. Stuff this tiger, and move along; otherwise, this is heading for WP:LAME. If people want to waste time on it further, feel free to badger me about it; I don't mind. If you won't accept my own assessment of consensus, we can discuss that further, and let these good folks get on with improving other stuff.  Chzz  ►  08:08, 14 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.

24 articles infobox images

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. 24 (season 1) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 24 (season 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 24 (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 24 (season 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 24 (season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 24 (season 6) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 24 (season 7) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 24 (season 8) (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? About a week ago, I was doing some cleanup of a few articles relating to the TV series 24, as part of my effort to get one particular article to good article status. I had noticed that the info boxes of the season articles (linked above) had the image changed from the main cast in the info box, which was in effect from 2006 until a few months ago, when InfamousPrince (talk · contribs) uploaded DVD cover art (from Region 1) to the articles. I proceeded to upload over the images with cover art from Region 4, and requested an administrator delete the old revisions under our non-free content criteria, where old revisions are deleted after seven days. Admittedly I jumped the queue, and should have waited the 7 days. A thread was opened on my talk page by Drovethrughosts (talk · contribs), in regards to the differences between using Region 1 cover art as opposed to Region 2/4 cover art. As a result of that discussion, it was agreed that we revert back to the cast images in the info box, so I did so, and requested the DVD covers be deleted. I was then notified of a thread on the WikiProject TV page where InfamousPrince (talk · contribs) raised objection to the deletion of the image, and requested that the Region 1 images be undeleted and restored to the articles. My argument was that the articles weren't broken in the first place, that adding DVD covers has brought up a dispute over which region cover to use (Region 1 encompassing US and Canada, Regions 2 and 4 which use the same art encompass the rest of the world where it was released). Their argument was that DVD cover art is always in the info boxes, and that it is always of the cover art where the series premiered. I feel that discussion on the project talk page has not been effective at coming to a consensus. As a believer in the dispute resolution process, I think that getting more opinions and outside views is the best way of resolving this. Personally I think that if we cannot come to an agreement then we should find a compromise, which I feel is reverting back to how things were previously, but understand that this is a discussion that should have more eyes and opinions, thus it is why I am bringing the issue here. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Steven Zhang (talk · contribs) InfamousPrince (talk · contribs) AussieLegend (talk · contribs) Drovethrughosts (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, I have notified all the editors on their talk page, additionally I have placed a note at the Wikiproject discussion page. 23:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC) N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=24 articles infobox images}} --~~~~ 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 attempted to engage in the discussion on the WikiProject Television talk page, but we have not been able to come to an agreement. How do you think we can help? I'd like the input from other editors here. I invite comments on what the best resolution for this dispute could be, as I do not feel that continued discussion on the project talk page will garner a consensus. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC) 24 articles infobox images discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. This would seem to be rather premature given that discussion about this matter really only started at WT:TV#Deletion of covers four hours before this dispute was opened, with only nine posts in the discussion so far. I've only made a single post in that discussion and Drovethrughosts, who is also named, hasn't had a chance to post yet. DRN is not for disputes "which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page", and that's the case with this. I don't think Steven Zhang has given that discussion reasonable opportunity to reach a conclusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC) I feel that I discussed the issue in detail on the talk page. I also feel that the discussion on the talk page was somewhat unproductive, and that comments (admittedly not by yourself) stating "I will put those DVD images back, would you like it or not." is unhelpful. I feel I made reasoned arguments in favour of my viewpoints, and feel these were not considered on the talk page, so I have brought it here to be addressed by those who volunteer at DRN. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 03:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC) You may have discussed it, but others haven't had opportunity to even reply to posts you've made there. You really need to give things time and not be in such a hurry to get things finished. Being in such a hurry is what led to this discussion in the first place. Not everybody sits at their keyboard 24 hours a day, discussions can often take days or weeks and rarely reach an impasse in only four hours. To be honest, this seems a bit like forum shopping. You had one editor express concern at your talk page, two more have expressed concern at WT:TV and now you've opened this discussion at a third location. Everything needs to be in one place and the WT:TV discussion is an open forum where the opinions of other editors can be sought. One has just replied there. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Perhaps I was quick to file this, but I stand by it. I dispute that it is forum shopping however. I'm willing to take the high road, however. The MOS:TV recommends posters, then DVD covers, then lastly any other images, and as DVD covers are causing an issue in regards to regions, we should search for promo posters instead. Sounds good? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 04:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Am gonna stay with my last post, to put DVD covers in the infobox (as there are also DVD release dates), and to put cast images below in the "Characters" section. I think that there should be Region 1 DVD covers, because the show is from the United States, the same way the show from the Europe should have Region 2 DVD covers. And also, like I already said, there should not be cast images at all because every main character of every eight seasons has its own article, with image, so there should not be additional image. I only wanted to improve articles quality by adding DVD covers, and I definitely did that.  InfamousPrince  09:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Outside opinion by Chzz My views are ALWAYS "in my humble opinion". I'm totally uninvolved; I'm making no judgement whatsoever. I'm just pointing out what I think is, the best way forwards. I suggest you split this. It's not one debate, it's two. A) decide if anyone gives a shit about the apparent 'out of process deletion' - if they do, then that's a user-matter; discuss w/ user; -> med/RfC/U as appropriate. That's separate from the article matter. B) Article covers q, needs discussion on talk page, consensus, then add whatever images you like; "Wrong Version" for a while, fine. irrelevent. All parties on the talk should STFU about 'who deleted what' and should discuss the relative merits of the 2 choices re. images (use external links, no need to necc undelete them for that chat) Split the 'content debate' from the 'user debate'. Is all. We can deal with the "Was it out of process? Who did wrong?" (A) - we have systems for all that We can deal with "Which image is best?" (B) - we have OTHER processes for that We cannot deal with A+B on the same place. That is the actual "problem" right now. Trying to argue which image is best, whilst the waters are muddied by "BUT you SHOULDN'T have DELETED IT!!!111" isn't going to butter parsnips. I'm not judging; I'm just sayin' - it's two issues, not one. And they should be separated. Otherwise, it's unproductive. --- it is not appropriate to discuss "Should FOO have deleted BAA? Isn't that against XXX and YYY policies?" on an article talk (or WT:TV, ok) --- it is not appropriate to discuss "Should we use a Brit DVD cover or a Merkin DVD cover" on a user-action-debate (ie user talk, RfC/U, whatever) - because such discussion belongs on article talk As far as DRN goes, we need to know which dispute you need help resolving. Or, if it's two, fine; we can deal with each... separately. Hope that helps.  Chzz  ►  04:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC) The out of process deletion isn't a separate issue, it's just an example. Steven Zhang was in a hurry to get images deleted and that resulted in confusion, the WT:TV thread and extra work by editors trying to work out what actually happened and getting the images restored. He's now in a hurry to "resolve" an active discussion by opening a case at DRN only four hours after discussion at WT:TV really started. The point is he needs to be in much less of a hurry and let the WT:TV discussion reach its natural conclusion. If it doesn't reach a reasonable conclusion in a reasonable timeframe then he can come here. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Your talk about Mr. Zhang is (A). Your talk about images is (B). If Zhang has erred, we can trout him; no problem there. Which pics should we use? Let's discuss that, in the appropriate place.  Chzz  ►  05:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Just a note, we discussed the use of images, and as we could not agree, I looked to the MOS. I noticed that it recommends promotional posters to be used in the infobox as opposed to DVD covers, thus I uploaded 8 posters for each season and they are currently used in the infobox. I think this one can be closed as resolved, but will leave that to someone else to decide. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 05:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Am okay with having promotional posters. It is a lot better to have them in the infobox than both DVD covers and cast images. I also agree that this one can be closed as resolved. Cheers.  InfamousPrince  09:14, 12 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.

History of the rosary

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 the rosary (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? Content dispute over an actual recorded significant fact about the history of the rosary. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Djathinkimacowboy (talk · contribs) History2007 (talk · contribs) Rwflammang (talk · contribs) It appears to me the users in dispute are simply rejecting valid, cited material in order to lay claim to ownership of the article. Please be aware that Alpha_Quadrant has interceded to offer help and wonderful advice. 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 the rosary}} --~~~~ 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? Extensive discussion, examples and citations on talk page which are met with either mockery or straw man distractions. How do you think we can help? Please have an admin examine the edits, the disputed content and the conduct of the editors and render a decision. Wikipedia rules are being abused in this matter as it is now. Djathinkimacowboy 14:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC) History of the rosary 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 not even sure it is worth my time to comment on the claims here, given that the 1920s source from Wells used by Djathin is out of date, and contradicts the recently published WP:RS sources already in the article. And he said he has not even read the 1920s source he added, but used a non-RS website that said it had summarized the source. In any case, initially, I did not delete his source, but kept it, touched it up and asked for a page number and a second source to confirm it. When he said he had not even read the source he was adding, the statement had to be deleted given that had not even read his source. And the use of the words "folly" and "height of stupidity" in his very first post on the talk page to refer to others did not help. In any case, a large debate about a 1920s non-WP:RS source the editor had not even read but wanted to insert? Go figure... History2007 (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC) History2007 says: "And the use of the words 'folly' and 'height of stupidity' ..." These refer to edits, ideas and actions at the article. I did not call anyone a "fool" or "stupid". This does not violate personal attacks as History2007 would like you to believe, and I take tremendous exception to History's repeated attempts to blacken my name as an editor. Djathinkimacowboy 18:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC) History2007 says above: "And he said he has not even read the 1920s source he added, but used a non-RS website that said it had summarized the source." This is a lie. I posted no such thing, merely noting that I did not at present have any copies of Wells' works on hand. Again the editor claims: "In any case, initially, I did not delete his source, but kept it, touched it up and asked for a page number and a second source to confirm it." while technically true, this was done deliberately to make further editing more difficult. There was obviously no good faith in this action. "When he said he had not even read the source he was adding, the statement had to be deleted given that had not even read his source." Another flat lie. I call to everyone's attention this editor's proclivity to lie in the face of obvious posts that will refute his false statements. Djathinkimacowboy 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC) How I just love these deep Wikipedia discussions.... It is a great way to spend one's life... History2007 (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC) To call attention to another matter: my now-gone copies of Wells' works were older editions. History2007's demand[15] for either a page number or reversion of edit was both unfair and against Wikipedia ruling, which suggests but does not require a page numbered-reference. Djathinkimacowboy 15:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Edit warring diffs for reference: The proof to an intent to start edit warring by History2007 begins here[16] with the 1st removal of my appropriate good-faith edit. It continues here[17] - please note the separate edit but History2007's edit summary. Then here[18] is the 2nd reversion of my reinstated edit. Note the language of the edit is streamlined and more neutral, but was deleted again anyway. It is clear this editor was risking a great deal, in order to trick me into crossing the 3RR rubicon, which I did not. If you consult the edit here[19], you will see the unhealthy, aggressive obsession the two editors have with this section. Djathinkimacowboy 17:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC) A sense of being baited: Please consult here[20] for the contributions of Rwflammang, so you may see what he thinks of the whole issue. Without proving his POV of course. I'd like it noted that this whole thing is clearly a joke to both these editors, Rwflammang and History2007. Djathinkimacowboy 19:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC) History2007 just posted this at the talk page: "By the way, Rwflammang, how about the plot we hatched against Julius Caesar a few years ago in Rome... that was some caper.. was it not? But just to clarify things for the last time hopefully, the first two references in the article, both go against Well's statement. And they are both recent WP:RS sources. Not to mention the other refs in the article that also do not support Wells - a 1920s, less than RS source which ha snot even been read for a while and id quoted from memory or a non-RS source... Go figure... History2007 (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)" ... and I rest my case. I will not comment further on the spectacularly juvenile actions of these editors. Djathinkimacowboy 19:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC) This[21] ought to be considered when evaluating the insulting, condescending nonsense of these two editors. It must be plain by now that they can neither refute the fact and citation I wanted to add, nor can they erect straw men quickly enough to cover their tracks. I must enquire: is anyone else going to comment, and is anyone going to assist with the insulting abuses at the article? For myself, I do not care if they convert the thing to a Satanic ode; my concern now is the way they are attempting to own the article and bully anyone who comes near. This is what sickens me about Wikipedia and its processes. Djathinkimacowboy 22:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Outside opinion by Elen of the Roads If Djathinkimacowboy does not desist with the personal attacks on the other two editors, I can see administrator action occurring shortly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Elen, I am attacking no one here and you know it. Or if you don't know it, you're not reading. If you're not reading, are you not simply attacking me here? That is how I see it. Djathinkimacowboy 04:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC) I've been following Djathinkimacowboy's edits after a recent incident, and I'm seeing some very disturbing behavior - nearly every time this editor finds himself in conflict with others, I see him immediately take an unnecessarily aggressive and condescending tone, such as this inappropriate warning issued today after an editor revertedon of his edits, this personal attack on an editor who disagreed with him, or this "warning" he issued me after I had made *one* edit on an article he deemed his own. This editor has shown clear problems with WP:OWN recently, and his behaviour has beem, IMHO, in need of a check for some time. This current "report" of his seems like an elaborate plot to silence another set of editors whose only apparent "crime" was to contradict or oppose Djathinkimacowboy's ideas of what an article should say. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC) You are following nothing, or you'd be seeing nothing "disturbing", Mike. My edits have been routine and fairly mellow. Hard work to get along with editors who want to get along - I try to avoid those who won't get along. I this case, you are merely shadowing Elen as you two often do. But you are not doing your homework in this matter, and I ask that you both do so before commenting further. And I object to your dragging up an old case that did not go the way you and your friend wanted it to go. Djathinkimacowboy 04:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC) A modest, honest word about the above two editors, if I may. They were involved in a past episode and seem immediately hostile to my intentions here. No checking, no research, just immediate retribution for having the gall to bring a case ... or shall I say they advocate "administrator action ocurring shortly". Take it from whom it comes is all I ask. The mention of user Erikeltic should be enough of a clue, because that issue did not go so well for him or for me. It is a simple matter: close this and throw it out, or pursue it. I will not be the chew toy of those two editors again .... Djathinkimacowboy 04:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC) I only need to point out Djathinkimacowboy's response to make my point. It's never his fault, it's always a conspiracy. Okay then. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Outside opinion by Chzz It would help if you could state, more clearly, what the dispute is and what specific action you are requesting. From what I gather, you are asking about this. There is a searchable copy of Wells 1922 edition here. Searching it seems to indicate it does not mention "rosary" or "rosaries". Am I missing something? I see nothing wrong with the edit by History2007 here - it seems entirely appropriate, and a good-faith effort towards resolution. Djathinkimacowboy should not have added the fact back [22] without discussion and consensus. I agree with Rwflammang and History2007 that that reference is inadequate for that specific claim. If you could locate more modern and more authoritative reliable source, then it could be reconsidered. At this stage, it looks like there is no consensus for the edit, so I suggest it is left out of the article. I see no evidence that the users are "rejecting valid, cited material in order to lay claim to ownership of the article". I remind all parties that the article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article; it is not an appropriate place to warn other editors. Quoting from WP:TPG, Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.  Chzz  ►  10:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Small note: I removed Alpha_Quadrant (talk · contribs) from the "Parties involved" listed in the header of this dispute [23]. I see that Djathinkimacowboy asked him to comment on this matter, and that of course is fine; his comments would be welcome; however, he is not a user involved with the actual dispute.  Chzz  ►  11:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Statement by complainant I yield to the findings of CHZZ. What I originally raised here was the unfair removal of a cited significant fact, but as I stated, I do not have the copy of Wells' original 1920, 2-volume work, thus I cannot give a page number. CHZZ, the bartleby link you have is to Wells' toned-down Short History of 1922, which is why I did not use that at all. Djathinkimacowboy 15:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC) No worries, we will let bygones be bygones and move on. History2007 (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Clerk Comment: It appears that the complaintant has agreed to a resolution. Hearing no objections I'll close down the discussion in a day from this comment. Hasteur (talk) 15:42, 12 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.

Jerusalem: Abode of Peace

• Jerusalem (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 exists a dispute between myself and two editors who wish to remove the meanings of the name Jerusalem in Hebrew and Arabic, "Abode of Peace" and "The Holy Sanctuary" from the article lede. The case they make is based on the linguistic etymology of the names already covered in the Etymology section of the article, which suggests other meanings as well. They say that it's not NPOV to only have these two. I have argued and showed that these English meanings are the most commonly known for the name of the city in the two languages that are the most pertinent to its modern manifestation, and that they are there on that basis, not on the basis of the name's historical etymology which is covered in its own section.

The dispute mostly centered on the English meaning of Jerusalem 'Adobe of Peace'. I posted 14 sources to support that this is the widely held meaning of the name Jerusalem today. They dispute a few of the sources, but even if their assertion is accepted, there are more than enough reliable sources, 5 of which are from publishers of academic scholarly books, that support my position.

A third editor stepped into the discussion on the article's talk page to attempt to strike a compromise, which culminated in the motion remove also the widely held English meaning of the Arabic name of the city "Al-Quds [Al-Sharif]". I have tried to point out that the Arabic name is also not an exact translation of the English meaning and that it's there because it's the most commonly known meaning of the name in Arabic.

Jerusalem is a unique city with a burgeoning history of conflict, culture, theology and spirituality, recognized throughout the world. These meanings which reflect the modern day recognition of the city are there rightfully in the lede. Removing them compromises an important element of the city's identification in the article.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Nishidani (talk · contribs)
• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
• Oncenawhile (talk · contribs)

Though I believe I tried extensively to argue my position in good faith and with due respect, I found little such consideration from editors Nishidani and Zero000. They have both distorted my words repeatedly, focusing only on the etymology of the name and ignoring most of my comments regarding the reliably sourced validity of keeping these meanings in the introduction to the article. Their discourse towards me has been often derogatory and uncivil. Nishidani does not reply to the content of my comments on the widely held popular meanings of the name, but hurls repeated personal insults about my understanding of linguistics, when the inclusion I'm insisting that should remain is not based on the etymology issues they raise. I have ceased to try reasoning with them, though I would certainly make an effort if they'd display a change of tone and ability to discuss things civilly.

• 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".)

• Nishidani: Yes.
• Zero000: Yes.
• Oncenawhile: Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Jerusalem: Abode of Peace}} --~~~~ 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've discussed it extensively on the article's talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

I believe we need an outside look into the discussion on the talk page and some advice on whether the inclusion of these meanings must truly be based on etymology alone, which would necessitate including other meanings or removing them all. My position is that these most widely held English meanings of the Hebrew and Arabic names, both of which might not be etymologically or linguistically correct translations of the names, are nonetheless the most widely recognized and the only relevant ones to the city's modern manifestation, and should thus be maintained as they are in the lede.

MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem: Abode of Peace discussion

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

Opinion of Zero0000

A big part of the problem can be seen at the start of this submission. MichaelNetzer wrote about "two editors who wish to remove the meanings of the name Jerusalem in Hebrew and Arabic". In fact, removal of both "meanings" was proposed only as a despairing compromise when MichaelNetzer insisted on including, without even noting there is a dispute (i.e., in violation of WP:NPOV), a "meaning" for the Hebrew name that the scholarly consensus believes to be incorrect. This type of misrepresentation of the views of other editors, together for a penchant for not addressing any substantive points that others make, is characteristic of his writing and anyone who has the patience to wade through the long essays he likes to type should realise that. I have to go to work now, but I'll come back later to make a brief summary of the real issues. Zero^talk 22:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I beg to correct you Zero:

1. I initiated nothing. It was Nishidani who first proposed removing the Hebrew meaning, to which I began to respond.
2. These meanings have been there in the introduction long before I came to this page. I did not insert them nor "insisted on including" them (which suggests my inserting them). I am only defending their inclusion, and trying to show why they should not be removed.
3. I said clearly above that the dispute started with 'Abode of Peace', and that the suggestion for the removal of the meaning in Arabic was due to a proposed compromise. I misrepresented nothing, as you say. Please read what I've said carefully before making unfounded serious accusations about misrepresentation.
4. Though scholarly sources reflect on many etymologies for the evolution of the name, this is not the basis for which they are included in the lede. There exist enough sources, 5 of which I've posted by publishers of scholarly academic books, to show that 'Abode of Peace' is the most commonly known popular meaning of the name Jerusalem, and has taken root for nearly 2000 years, irrespective of other ancient meanings.
5. The discussion on the talk page, like your comment here, speaks for itself concerning who is misrepresenting the issues. It speaks for itself about who tried to address the others' concerns and who tried to remain respectful in the face of excessive personal remarks and condescending tone since the beginning of the discussion. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the issue in a nutshell.

1. The canonical Arabic name of the city, Al Quds is uniformly translated "The Holy" and there is no dispute that this is the meaning of it. The word "quds" and its variants are in fact common in Arabic and carry the concept of holiness or sanctity. There are no scholarly debates over the meaning as far as anyone demonstrated.
2. The canonical Hebrew name of the city, "Yerushalayim", is a word whose meaning is uncertain. The majority opinion of scholars is that the "shalayim" part, which was "shalem" in ancient times, comes from the name of the Canaanite god Shalim. The origin of the "Yeru" part is unclear and several options have been proposed. Although the name (at least the "shalem" part) originated more than half a millennium before the earliest attestation of the Hebrew language, early Jewish writers connected "shalem" to the Hebrew root ShLM which gives us "shalem" (complete) and "shalom" (peace), and from this a popular belief arose that the city's name means "City of Peace" or "Abode of Peace". This belief remains with us today. It is possible to find sources including historians who give this as the meaning of "Yerushalayim", but much harder to find this opinion amongst the experts in ancient languages, who overwhelmingly prefer the Canaanite god theory. Some sourced notes on this that I wrote a few years ago can be found here.
3. MichaelNetzer claims that the modern "meaning" of "Yerushalayim" is different from the original, but has not brought any source in support of such a two-stage process. In fact it is easy to disprove. If "Yerushalayim" now means "Abode of Peace" regardless of the etymology, a Hebrew speaker who wished to discuss some other abode of peace could use the word yerushalayim to denote it. But this is impossible, since the word yerushalayim means the city and nothing else. (In contrast, an Arabic speaker wishing to call something holy can use the word quds and this is normal and commonplace.) Alongside the meaning of the word "Yersushalayim" as the name of the city, we find a majority opinion of the scholars expert in the subject that it means something about a Canaanite god, and a very common popular belief that it means something about peace. In other words, when someone says "Yerushalayim means Abode of Peace" they are stating a belief in the origin of the name, not claiming that it now means something it didn't mean before.
4. In summary:
   1. It is reasonable to write "Al Quds (The Holy)" in the lede, since this can be well sourced and is not disputed.
   2. It is not reasonable to write "Yerushalayim (Abode of Peace)" in the lede, since this gives sole prominence to one of several competing theories (violating WP:NPOV) and would mislead readers into believing something that the majority of scholars don't believe (violating the aim of producing a good encyclopedia).
   3. One way to deal with this would be to write something like "Yerushalayim (believed by scholars to be derived from the god Shalim but popularly interpreted as Abode of Peace)". A second way would be "Yerushalayim (uncertain meaning, see below)". A third way would be to leave mention of the meaning to later sections. As a compromise to promote the third way, even though the facts don't demand it, the meaning of "Al Quds" could also be left until later.

Zero^talk 14:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

First, I'm happy to see my colleague Zero's long answer above, recognizing the need for exposition sometimes, after having pejoratively characterized some of my answers as "characteristic of his writing and anyone who has the patience to wade through the long essays he likes to type should realise that". It's also peculiar that he made no such comment about Nishidani's answers to me, which were on the average about 150% the length of mine. This is maybe consistent with a particular prejudice Zero displayed throughout discussions with me in which he makes remarks of a personal nature, or intentionally misleads readers and misrepresents issues as he does in his new answer above.

1. Zero has tried to change the direction of his argument by misrepresenting how the Arabic name and meaning appear in the lede of the article. Fortunately, even a child can see that it does not presently appear as "Al Quds (The Holy)", in support of this misleading case he makes. What is on the page and has been there, long before I came to it, is "al-Quds [al-Sharif] The Holy Sanctuary". For 90% of their argument to remove the Hebrew 'Abode of Peace', Zero and Nishidani, did not once mention that the present appearance of the Arabic name is also not a literal translation. "Al Quds" is truly known as "Al Quds [al-Sharif]", but the proper translation of the words into English, which no Arabic language scholar would deny, is "The Honored Holy" not "The Holy Sancutary". The reason it appears that way is because "The Holy Sanctuary" is the most common English meaning of the Arabic name, even though it is not a literal translation.
2. As Zero states above "removal of both "meanings" was proposed only as a despairing compromise". This affirms that Zero and Nishidani were more than happy to maintain a non-literal translation of the Arabic name, but would not tolerate the same for the Hebrew name that they so aggressively argued for removing. It exposes an unfortunate POV push on their part and a prejudice against Hebrew associations. As a result of my making this case for the appearance of the Arabic meanings, Zero now tries to take the position of demanding a literal translation for the Arabic and throws sand into everyone's eyes by arguing for the use of "Al Quds (The Holy)", when that is not the way the Arabic name now appears or has appeared in the article lede since they raised their objection to the Hebrew.
3. Zero also continues displaying a prejudice against the Hebrew name by equating an ancient meaning with a present one. While no Jewish scholar denies the pre-Hebrew foundation 'Shalem' relating to an ancient god, it is frankly irrelevant to the present state of the city. It is an ancient naming, and we do not even have evidence that the people who claimed it (the Jebusites) were the original founders of the city who named it. So we cannot even be certain that the meaning they gave relevant to the god "Salim" is the original one upon which Shalem is founded. But this ancient meaning has no relevance whatsoever to the current city because there is no Jebusite culture or people in the world claiming the city for themselves today. This ancient meaning belongs to antiquity, is properly expounded upon in the Etymology section, and has no place in the lede next to the common Hebrew and Arabic meanings that are most commonly recognized today for the city's modern demographics and culture.
4. On the basis of this coy POV push and prejudice, I've shown that scholarly sources affirm 'Abode of Peace' and 'The Holy Sancutary' as the most recognized modern meanings of the Hebrew and Arabic names.[24] Equating them with ancient names, given by cultures that are no longer in the world today, is not supported by any scholarly sources. It is a misleading argument intended for removal of the Hebrew meaning only, as about 90% of the discussion on the talk page shows. It is not proper for Zero to now claim a more correct Arabic meaning when he made no such case for most of the discussion. I beg the listening ear of editors and admins here to try to understand the validity of this distinction, and discern the sound reasoning for maintaining the lede as it is.

Comment. It isn't obligatory or expected to include the literal meaning of a city name in the first sentence of its article. Indeed, flicking through some city articles, it seems to be sometimes done, but not usually. If a reader wants to know the meaning, it seems to me unlikely that they will feel inconvenienced by having to scroll down or text search, or that they will find it odd that they may have to do so.

If there is *significant* dispute as to the meaning of "Jerusalem" (or, indeed, al-Quds), then it would seem wrong, per NPOV, to make it seem, in the first sentence of the article, as if there is a definitive meaning. If there is such a dispute, then it would also seem wrong per WEIGHT to incorporate the whole of the dispute into the first sentence of the article.

I must stress that this opinion is fairly uninformed as to the substance of the issues, but I find it hard to imagine what would be so bad about not mentioning any literal meaning in the first sentence and instead leaving it for a section lower down. --FormerIP (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree it's not obligatory but the question is whether the article is made better by it or not. I think it certainly is in this case because Jerusalem is a unique city with rich meanings that are a significant part of its history and character. I also haven't found that there's a dispute about these meanings being the most widely recognized today. The disagreements are mostly around the origin of the ancient name of Jerusalem because history becomes more vague going back so far. But I haven't seen sources that dispute these meanings having taken root over time and becoming the most commonly recognized for the modern city. It's not as if there are other meanings that compete with them for current notability. I don't see a POV or WEIGHT problem in that regard. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, you seem to be suggesting that there is no dispute about the meaning, but there is a dispute about the origin. Could you explain that a bit more? Because I'm having trouble working it out. Surely two different origins is pretty much the same thing as two different meanings (?). --FormerIP (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, I would correct myself here and say that there is also no dispute about the ancient origin of the name, because we do not know the origin of the name. No scholar claims they know that the Jebusites who presided over the city before the Israelites were its original founders. So, we cannot even be certain they were the ones who originally gave the name Shalem. They might have conquered an existing settlement named Shalem but we have no archaeological or scholarly evidence either way to affirm or deny that the root origin of the name is based on the Jebusite god 'Salim'. It is simply the most ancient name that scholars have evidence for but it is not conclusive for an origin. There is also no dispute about the ancient meanings. No Jewish scholars deny the pre-Hebrew Jebusite name and its meaning. No one disputes the evolution of the name from ancient antiquity to today. Likewise no one disputes that 'Abode of peace' has become the most recognized meaning of the name Jerusalem for the modern city. I have argued against the removal of the Hebrew and Arabic meanings because of this distinction between the ancient names that are no longer relevant to the city's modern culture and demographics. Such ancient meanings belong in Etymology while recognized modern meanings belong in the lede. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)