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

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, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Ooty

• Ooty (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?

Ooty is also a railway station and as such I added the article to [Category:Railway Stations in Tamil Nadu]. But one user Surajt88 dis-agrees with this category and has already reverted the category more than twice. Since I don't want to break 3 revert rule and so starting discussion here - as advised by him also.

He says Ooty is not a railway station. It is a town. I wouldn't mind adding it to a category like Category:Towns with Railway stations in Tamil Nadu. to create a new category like [Category:Towns with Railway stations in Tamil Nadu] and is not ready to accept that a railway station will obviously will be place which is either a town or a village.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Surajt88 (talk · contribs)
• Jethwarp (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=Ooty}} --~~~~ 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?

Please see Ooty Talk Page -[1]

• How do you think we can help?

Please advise if a town or village has railway station - Can we not just add the article to Category : Railway Station in XYZ.

Jethwarp (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ooty discussion

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

Template:Cue Where categories are concerned, I've looked at the discussion mentioned in the opening, and I'd like to know something. Ooty may be both a railway station and a town, but which is this article primarily about? If this article is about the town, and not specifically about the train station, I would say the train station category is likely inappropriate. The question: would a separate article about Ooty Railway Station meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? If so, perhaps Jethwarp can find reliable sources and write a separate article about the train station. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Kindly note the other discussions pertaining to this dispute here and here Suraj T 04:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that Ooty Railway Station is indeed notable and created the article. Anyway, the actual dispute arose when I asked Jethwarp to refrain from adding railway station categories to articles of towns and cities, which they have done on numerous occasions as can be seen from their contribs. Suraj T 05:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It is so nice of Surajt88, who suddenly noticed that Ooty is also a notable railway station and created new article after the DRN was placed and a suggestion of creating Ooty railway station article was given by User:Sleddog116.

But my original question still remains to be clarified. In India - many towns and villages are connected by railway station. It is not possible to create a Railway Station article for each and every town & village.

For example - Brajrajnagar Railway Station is also a railway station, which is located in Brajrajnagar town.

Further, this would lead way to creation of many hundreds of one line articles for railway station for each & every town / village, which I think should be avoided. Instead, just adding Category of railway station to an article of town / village - just gives the reader of article knowledge that okay - the town is connected by rail road also.

Further, I am also not agreeable to Surajt88's suggestion given [[2]] of creating categories like Category:Towns with Railway stations in Tamil Nadu because this will lead to unnecessary categorization when Category:Railway stations in Tamil Nadu is already there. Further, there are villages also, which have rail road station, for that someone would suggest please create Category:Villages with Railway stations in Tamil Nadu, Category:Villages with Railway stations in Karnataka, Category:Towns with Railway stations in Karnataka & so on & so on leading to complex categories and complicating the matter further. Jethwarp (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue Yes, many towns in India are, I'm sure, connected by rail. However, not all of those railway stations are notable. As far as categories are concerned, it doesn't really make sense to categorize a town by something that's there in it. For instance, Martinsville is a town in Virginia, and its main secondary school is called Martinsville High School (which has a separate article). It wouldn't make sense to categorize the Martinsville article based on the school - even though the article might mention the school, the school has its own article. In other words, any categories pertaining to the school would be attached to the article about the school, not the town. Similarly, the article about the train station would have the train station categories, but categorizing the town article under railway stations wouldn't make sense. (And creating all of those off-the-wall categories would create unnecessary categorization.) Sleddog116 (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism

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. Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism (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 disagreement about whether the template should exist at all. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? BoDu (talk · contribs) DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) PRODUCER (talk · contribs) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk · contribs) Nuujinn (talk · contribs) Свифт (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? Yes. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Template talk:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism. How do you think we can help? I think the dispute needs some rational thought involved. BoDu (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism discussion Oh dear, another controversy about Yugoslavia in World War II. Great, just what we needed. Thanks for informing me : anyway, I have not really taken part in the controversy as I have lacked the time to contribute to the english wikipedia lately. Still, I do think there are some POV issues involved in this template, as in many Yugoslav-themed articles. My position in a nutshell is that the template should not exist at all, or rather be replaced by a template which would include everything regarding the Yugoslavia in World War II and not try to push forward any judgement about anybody. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Agree. The template topic is inherently focusing on a specialized negative aspect. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Disagree. Surely this is about whether the existence of the template is warranted by the sources and in the context of Yugoslavia in WW2. For example, it is abundantly clear from the exhaustively sourced material in the Chetniks and Pavle Djurisic articles that Chetniks and Djurisic collaborated. Djurisic was awarded the Iron Cross by the German commander in Montenegro, for Pete's sake! JJG's suggestion that no-one should be trying 'to push forward any judgement about anybody' is surely a contradiction to the encyclopedic nature of WP. If the reliable published sources make judgements that collaboration was a significant issue in Yugoslavia in WW2 (and they resoundingly do), then my view is that the use of the template is appropriate in that context. If collaboration is significant in context, then it does not matter if, as North8000 suggests, it is inherently focusing on a specialised negative aspect. It is significant, and this justifies the template. I must say I feel the cold hand of POV touching my shoulder on this one, and I must also say that there are quite a few editors on these articles that are from the countries involved, who have strong sympathies for one of the nations or ethnic groups involved, or have strong views on the events of WW2 in Yugoslavia (ie axes to grind or at the very least a perceived conflict of interest). I have observed that these feelings and sympathies can lead some editors far away from the sources. BoDu for example, who has brought this dispute here, makes it clear on his user page that he despises Tito and is a fan of a member of the WW2 Yugoslavian government in exile (Grol). I do my best to WP:AGF regarding all editors, and I hope BoDu does his best to keep these feelings at bay when he edits articles that relate to Tito and the Partisans or Serbs involved in WW2, but if he has those views, he's pretty close to the problem, and it makes it much harder to discuss these things with him because his view is not necessarily based on reliable published sources. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Indeed. BoDu never brings up sources, and on the singular occasion he did bring-up a source, has been caught blatantly falsifying it (apparently listing a publication and an author with random page numbers hoping he wouldn't get called on them). @North8000, "not pushing judgement on anybody" sounds very zen but it really makes no sense. We must represent what the sources have to say, no more no less. -- Director (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC) I agree with Jean-Jacques Georges and North8000 that the template should not exist. Almost all countries that were under Axis occupation do not have template about the collaborationism (I found only Denmark). BoDu (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Of course you do. Deleting content and whole templates is a small price to pay as long as you can delete the sourced information as "collateral damage". -- Director (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Having extensively read the discussion at hand, and arguments for and against the template, I would like to assist in the resolution of this dispute. Firstly, I wish to address that given that editors in this matter have a horse in this race it is essential that inflammation of the situation be minimised. People feel passionate about things, and when you butt heads with someone with opposing views whether intentionally or unintentionally it is always a distressing issue. The matter of the template appears to have a pre-existing consensus as to it's neccessity, and all elements therein are extensively sourced. I am assuming that the extensive sourcing is in place due to the controversial nature of the issue. Whilst no one wants to hear bad things about their nation or ethnic group, and whilst people have varying views on history based on personal experience, these issues border on original research and emotive elements that cannot be dealt with within Wikipedia. We have guidelines and policies to assist us with these matters, and in situations like this it is probably more prudent to take issues with the policies that allow something you disagree with rather than turning to an article to champion your cause. My grandfather was a Yugoslav partisan, although I know nothing about the matter beyond that, so I shall leave my interaction on this matter purely as commentary rather than determined dispute resolve. To my credit, half of my family were on the allied side, the other half on the axis side, from British naval and air force officers, to a member of the SS, the partisan grandfather, etc, etc. So I swiftly learnt to have no vested interest in those sorts of issues to survive family gatherings; but again I feel that this (whilst not reflected anywhere on Wikipedia and thus is purely me being transperent and open about something personal in my family history that may be held against me by participants in this dispute) may be enough to remove me from the argument. If on these grounds any party would like me to step away from this dispute I am more than willing to do so. We have numerous active volunteers who are here to help you, and as much as I would like to assist I can just as easily ask another volunteer to step up. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Of course its sourced. Thoroughly sourced. And all participants aside from BoDu have taken that into consideration. -- Director (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2012 (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.

The Mole (MC/producer)

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. The Mole (MC/producer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? This page was deleted due to the artist being "too obscure for Wikipedia". After a message was sent to the administrator TParis (who happens to be on Administrator Review), I received a response requesting that I send references proving the validity of the artist's worth. I sent a very large list of references, and have received no reply. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Jonah Mociun (talk · contribs) TParis (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".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=The Mole (MC/producer)}} --~~~~ 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? As mentioned prior, TParis requested references, which I gave, yet the page remains deleted. It is extremely disheartening, as an independent artist, to see my long track record disappear from the internet, not only on Wikipedia but in a very large number of web sites dating back to 1999. The fact that this page, which I did not create by the way, was deleted due to obscurity, is yet another kick in the face to someone who has purposefully remained independent, turning down deals, for moral reasons, from Sony, Virgin, and others. I feel like Wikipedia is supposed to represent the free press, which is rapidly dwindling. And to delete a page due to an artist's "obscurity" seems not only unnecessary but counter to what is purported to be a system of interoperability. I have changed my stage names numerous times over the years and represented a variety of relatively short-lived collectives, thereby making my name difficult to track, but I believe that an honest search for terms such as "The Mole", "Th' Mole" "DJ 0.000001", "Magical Bass" and "Motion Recordings" should give some idea of the validity and influence of my work. I have worked prominently with many non-commercial labels and organizations including Magical Bass, Motion Recordings, The Motherboard, New Cocoon, Hectic Records, Daly City Records, Fresh yO!, Anti-Party Records, Chickenhed, Vaatican Records, SPAZ, Iceberg, Circuitry Audio, Diseased Records, Paramanu Records, Milled Pavement Records, Ramadon Recordings, and others. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. How do you think we can help? Please re-instate said Wiki page, considering above-mentioned points. 69.230.109.25 (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC) The Mole (MC/producer) discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Carlingford Lough - The border

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. Carlingford Lough - The border (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? I am just looking a 3rd opinion. There appears to be a needless POV push on this particular page and I would like to see if an Admin can see an overwhelming consensus on this change? [3] Certain users have been pushing the viewpoint that Northern Ireland is not a country and hence does not have an international border with ROI. The term International was removed from text, leaving the border. Either international should be restored to the text or the pipe should be removed. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Gravyring (talk · contribs) Gravyring (talk · contribs) The page is largely held back in its content by a number of Irish Nationalist POV pushers, who seem to want to pretend that NI does not exist as a country. Currently there is a discussion on the location field of the infobox which currently pipes to Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border. So there is a contradiction. 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".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Carlingford Lough - The border}} --~~~~ 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? Topic discussion with no reasoning to objection. How do you think we can help? There are a number of inconsistency's on the page, but POV pushers are prohibiting the addition of accurate edits. 1. The term International was removed without consensus. A revert is necessary. 2. The location field should be changed to Northern Ireland to mirror point 1 and to be consistent with 'basin countries' field and the map of Ireland showing both Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland. Gravyring (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Carlingford Lough - The border discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Richard F. Cebull

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. Richard F. Cebull (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? Cebull is in the news for forwarding an email about Obama. I tried to add a clause about the content of the email. Users on the talk page have offered a series of changing arguments as to why the content should not be added to the article. These arguments include: I have misunderstood the joke; there is no agreement about what the joke means; "there are BLP issues involved here"; the article doesn't contain enough detail about other aspects of the bio; and "that's three voices compared to one". Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Goethean (talk · contribs) Bbb23 (talk · contribs) Bernardoni (talk · contribs) Jokestress (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".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Richard F. Cebull}} --~~~~ 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? [4] How do you think we can help? Please review the suggested addition and advise whether it is an appropriate addition to the article. — goethean ॐ 01:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Richard F. Cebull discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persian Gulf Naming Dispute

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 Bahrain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Naif Hazazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Seven Seas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Hormuz Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Saudi Gazette (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? the user "Uishaki" is vandalizing the internationally-recognized geographic name of the Persian Gulf. I (user:Kamran the Great) undid a few of their edits and left message on talk page, with references. Their response on my talk page, although civil, is unacceptable and lacks any reliable evidence. Uishaki has then proceeded to make the same change to other pages. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Uishaki (talk · contribs) Kamran the Great (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=Persian Gulf - name vandalizing}} --~~~~ 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? discussed on talk page. How do you think we can help? Asking the other user to stop disruptive and incorrect editing. Kamran the Great (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Persian Gulf Naming Dispute discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Comment by Zero - Although other names exist, the name in English sources for this body of water is overwhelmingly "Persian Gulf" and this has been true for a couple of centuries. We have an article: Persian Gulf naming dispute. The wiki guideline of using common English names doesn't allow any other name in ordinary references. Zerotalk 13:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Clerk Comment: Just a quick reminder to everyone here (I will probably comment more in-depth when I have a little more time) - edit warring (or even stubbornness) is not vandalism. This goes for everyone involved - you may not like the position of the other editors, but the accusations of vandalism need to stop, and they need to stop now, as no vandalism has been committed. Zero: the Wiki guideline is just that: a guideline. Nothing - nothing - on Wikipedia is set in stone. That is the entire purpose of the encyclopedia. That doesn't mean one particular name can or can't be used. We have to address the problems with the way the dispute is framed before we can adequately address the dispute itself. Everyone: There will be no more accusations of vandalism in this thread - from anyone. Any such accusations will be removed or refactored. I (and I believe I speak for everyone who assists here on DRN) take false accusations of vandalism very seriously, and there will be no more on this thread. Having said that, we can now continue the discussion. I will try to give a more in-depth comment on the dispute when I am less busy and have had a little more time to research the situation, but for now, remember that the correct way to resolve a dispute on Wikipedia is by staying cool and addressing edits, not editors. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC) I agree with everything you say, sorry if it appeared otherwise. A guideline is something we should follow unless we have a good reason not to. In this case we have an attempt to replace a very common name by a very unusual one in multiple articles, without a sufficient reason being offered. In my opinion, that is an example of what the guideline intends to avoid. It isn't vandalism but it isn't good editing either. It is bad for the comprehensibility of articles to use names that most readers don't know, when there is a very common one available. Zerotalk 12:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Template:Cue I agree that the guidelines are very clear that we should use "Persian Gulf". The main guideline that is applicable here is WP:PLACE, which says "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources". "Persian Gulf" seems by far the most common name used in English-language reliable sources; there's Britannica and the CIA World Factbook for two, plus the whole of our article on Persian Gulf naming dispute. There is simply no way that "Arabian Gulf" can be used instead of "Persian Gulf". Sorry about this Uishaki, but that's just the way Wikipedia works, I'm afraid. As for the conduct of the editors, none of the edits of either editor involved were vandalism, and Sleddog is right that we should be very strict with our use of this word. Next time, I strongly recommend sticking to the definition found at WP:VANDAL. That's not to say that none of the edits were problematic - I think that if Uishaki continues to change "Persian Gulf" to "Arabian Gulf" then he could be sanctioned for tendentious editing. I would say that if there is more edit warring over this, then it would probably be best to start a thread at WP:ANI. Hopefully things won't come to that, though, as ANI threads are rarely pleasant experiences for the editors involved. If anyone has any questions about my comment, please let me know. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Stradivarius, you beat me to the punch here. I had actually discussed this with User:TransporterMan already, but it's probably a good time to reiterate it. Uishaki, if you are against the name "Persian Gulf," your only real recourse at this time would be to discuss a possible change to the Manual of Style, but you'll most likely end up with the same results there. It may be time to just move on to other editing opportunities in other areas of Wikipedia. I'm going to close this thread now, as all the appropriate action seems to have been taken. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2012 (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.

Arabian Gulf - name vandalizing discussion

Closed discussion

Stewart Nozette

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. Stewart Nozette (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 para 4 of Career section it states that Nozette was on the National Space Council under President George W. Bush. He was not, in spite of what the reliable source says. I worked at the Space Council for the entire period of its existence; part of my responsibility was personnel & therefore know for a fact he was never on the Council. I tried deleted the line, Username: Scapler put it back in citing, original research. In an effort to make the claim more factual, I added the word "purportedly worked on...". Scapler took that out as well. I bring this issue to the dispute process only because it is my understanding that Wikipedia strives to be a factual medium. Leaving the Nozette Career history as is violates this principle. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Scapler (talk · contribs) Whysosirius (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".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Stewart Nozette}} --~~~~ 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? sent a message to Scapler on Talk How do you think we can help? Fina a way to correct the inaccuracy of the Career/National Space Council claim. Whysosirius (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Stewart Nozette discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Clerk comment: This seems to me like a classic case of WP:V. Whysoserious - you yourself said that the source provided was reliable ("...in spite of what the reliable source says."), so it would not be correct to remove it (it is, after all, relevant) unless you can provide sources to the contrary (your own experience does not count). If you question the reliability of the source, you should first discuss it on the article's talk page, and if that doesn't yield a solution, you should go to the reliable source noticeboard. Wikipedia does strive to be a factual medium, and the only way we can accomplish this is by verifying our information through reliable sources. We do not have any vested contributors, meaning that what you do outside of Wikipedia (i.e. working for the Space Council) doesn't influence whether material is included or not. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2012 (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.

Saini

• Saini (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?

Saini (an Indian caste) article is going through "edit wars". Editors of Saini descent have made several unsubstantiated claims by either providing false references, cherry picking a few references & leaving most out, or by otherwise twisting what the referenced authors had actually said. In particular, I wish to dispute their claim to be Rajputs. I have expended significant effort on the talk page talking to the Saini editors and with neutral third-party editors (namely User: Sitush). Non-Saini editors seem to agree, but editors of Saini descent have continued to revert the changes. Other editors such as User: Sumitkachroo,User: Suryaudhay,User: MatthewVanitas have raised similar concerns from time to time. Here are some examples from the talk page:

1. They have completed ignored the works of published and renowned authors such as L. N. Dahiya, K.S. Singh, Sir Denzil Ibbetson, etc. that clearly dispute Saini editors claim to Rajput ancestry.

2. As an example of false reference, this book has listed Saini people as an agricultural tribe, but the article in its introduction says "As with other Rajput origin tribes of the then Punjab region, Sainis also took up farming during medieval period due to the Turko-Islamic political domination.[11]" This is pure fiction since the author does not equate Sainis with Rajputs.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Rajput666 (talk · contribs)
• Sitush (talk · contribs)
• Sumitkachroo (talk · contribs)
• Suryaudhay (talk · contribs)
• Garry_Singh_Girn (talk · contribs)
• 99.233.132.217 (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=Saini}} --~~~~ 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?

Discussed it thoroughly on the talk page both with Saini people and other non-Saini editors.

• How do you think we can help?

I want a simple addition to the article stating that "A number of historians and academics do not give Sainis Rajput status." Moreover, I would like the non-existent references removed; an example of which I have provided above.

Rajput666 (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Saini discussion

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

Here we go again. The usual bollocks about whether caste X is descended from a god, or instead descended from something a dog left behind. I think that the most appropriate response has got to be that for Wikipedia purposes, we don't care. This is the 21st century. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Then delete the page and I'll have absolutely no problem with that! And FYI, there is an entire reservation system built around this, so in the 21st century, it matters very much. --Rajput666 (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That was not a particularly helpful response, AndyTheGrump :( If you adopt the "we don't care because it is the 21st century" logic then all historical content would be removed from this project.

The issue should be simple: various sources note that the community claims Rajput status and claims to be connected to an older community, known as the Shoorsaini (there are numerous spellings). Some people want to convert a claim into a undisputed truth but, of course, we should show all sides. I have been trying to dig around the sources a bit more but have a lot of irons in the fire. If people would be prepared to give me a few days then I will commit to it. Someone else can set the time scale, in order that it does not appear that I am filibustering or something. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Some examples:

• Mazumder clearly notes a Punjabi commissioner differentiating between Sainis and Rajputs, and in fn. 55 on the same page shows a class return (official publication) from 1925 that differentiates also. He further shows a class return from ::*1919 that also differentiated.

If you read it carefully, English source he quotes also mentions Janjua, Sial, Mahton, etc as different from Rajputs. You can check that in the class returns that you are mentioning. This reasoning could apply to many other Rajput tribes. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that English sources are confused about what constituted a Rajput category and lack consistency in the usage of the term for different tribes of Punjab.--129.42.208.187 (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Judge & Bal also make the distinction (note 9). They do so again in lists on pp. 65, 68 and 76.

• Mukherjee & Jayaswal
• Krishan. Also pp. 75, 78, 84.
• M. S. A. Rao. Also p. 70.
• Tamang

Some of the above are better than others, in the context of our article. M. S. A. Rao is particularly significant because of his primary academic focus. Nonetheless, there are clearly a lot of people out there making a distinction between Rajput and Saini. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Mahajan. See also p. 16.
• Sarkar & Sarkar
• Chaudhuri
• 1927 Suket State Gazetteer
• Christophe Jaffrelot
• Yadav
• Singer & Cohn

I think that will do. When the likes of Jaffrelot, Singer/Cohn and the Sarkar/Sarkar pairing join in - all published by university presses etc - then I think it should be game over. - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What good is any of this, if somebody is just going to revert the changes by claiming "Undoing changes by xxx. Reverting to back to yyy."? Once details are agreed on, this page needs to be locked down in some fashion. --Rajput666 (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Once a consensus is obtained, be it here or elsewhere, then certainly for a reasonable length of time and probably until some convincing new information comes to light, we just point people to the consensus. There are general sanctions in place for articles such as this: if they wilfully ignore the consensus then they will likely find themselves in trouble pretty quickly. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You have ignored many references where the term Rajput has been used to positively identify Sainis. We need to be honest here (I am afraid you are not being so maybe due to hasty reading). Gahlot and Haryana ASI publication (based on the quotes I read on talk page) explicity identify them as a branch of Rajputs who became agricultural in Muslim era. You could argue that the claim part should also be given some weight a much as a positive identification but do not say that there are no uninvolved sources which positively identify them as a Rajput group. This is false and misrepresentation. If the sources are conflicted , then we need to judge them by their reliablity value and quote both, rather than trying sweep a claim that seems to have some validation, however strong or sparse, under the carpet. We may also need to take cognizance of the fact that different castes could be known by same name in different parts of the country and may not have anything in common despite having same name. In this reference it is important that they be split by geography in subsections or new articles should be started if the groups have little in common beyond name.--129.42.208.187 (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am just a drive by editor with only a passing interest in this topic. Please note HA Rose and Ibbetson have written patently racist , casteist and downright libelous stuff about a number of castes in their work. Additionally,their work is based on rudimentary census techniques on 19th century which are considered unscientific and based on out-moded race theories of English era which Engilish administrators tried unsuccessfully to superimpose on Indian caste order which was essentially different. Here are some snippet about the kind of comments that are found in Rose's work (copying from another editor's post on another article):

• "They are small of stature, of quite remarkable personal ugliness, and very quarrelsome and litigious", ( "ugly" Mahtons)

• " adds that they are wasteful in marriage expenditure, hospitable to travellers, thievish...." ( "thievish" Kharrals)

Reference: Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province, p54 & p 496, H.A. Rose, IBBETSON, Maclagan, Asian Educational Services

• "...smaller in physique and less intelligent than a Jat". ( "less intelligent" Kambohs)

• "They differ entirely in character from the idle, thievish and cowardly Gujars of the Southern Punjab" ( "thievish and cowardly" Gujars)

• "They are of inferior physisque , envious, secretive, cowardly, lying , great bigots, in offensive and capital cultivators" ( "cowardly and lying" Bannuchi Pathans)"

Reference: A glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab and North-West frontier province: A.-K." H.A. Rose, p445,p36, p63 Atlantic Publishers & Dist, 1997

These examples are just a handful. Entire works of these "authorities" are littered with sweeping generalizations about castes that are blatantly racist and would not be accepted anywhere as genuine scholarship by today's standards. Not just a few individuals , entire castes and tribes are termed "criminal", "ugly", "theivish" etc.

By any manner you look at it Rose/Ibbeton and any work derived from their authority will go under what Wikipedia calls questionable source. Any secondary source which traces to this source also needs to be treated as questionable source only. Not all secondary sources on Indian ethnography are reliable even if they happen to be university publications. This has been a gray area which academics need to address. Meanwhile, wikipedia needs to have a policy which does not grant automatic legitimacy to a secondary source work (even published by a source otherwise considered credible) which traces to a British era literature whose accuracy and intent are both widely disputed. My two cents.--129.42.208.187 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You might also want to consider the following comment by Kevin Hobson while citing any British era source on Indian ethnography:

" By establishing themselves as authorities on the caste system they could then tell the British what they believed the British wanted to hear and also what would most enhance their own position. The British would then take this information, received through the filter of the Brahmans, and interpret it based on their own experience and their own cultural concepts. Thus, information was filtered at least twice before publication. Therefore, it seems certain that the information that was finally published was filled with conceptions that would seem to be downright deceitful to those about whom the information was written. The flood of petitions protesting caste rankings following the 1901 census would appear to bear witness to this"

-The Indian Caste System and The British - Ethnographic Mapping and the Construction of the British Census in India , Kevin Hobson

This criticism would directly apply works such as Ibbetson's and Rose's and any secondary work quoting their authority. So these sources should not be considered kosher for wikipedia, given an overwhelming evidence of dispute regarding their accurarcy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.42.208.187 (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am the major contributor to many of the biographies involving British Raj "ethnologists". From James Tod, through H.H. Risley and on to H. A. Rose etc. Not forgetting Edgar Thurston and William Crooke. With the possible exception of Risley, most of those articles still need some work and they will get some time from me if sideshows such as this did not pop up quite so often.

They are all pretty much next to useless for our purposes, per the current academic thinking. And, yes, many were imbued with or even primary proponents of the discredited concept of scientific racism. We can cite them for their opinion but not as fact. No-one is saying that the claim should not be mentioned. What is being said is that there is an alternate viewpoint and that there are some contributors who are not particularly willing to allow that viewpoint to be shown. Honestly, this is really a very simple situation: show both sides. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy Lin

• Jeremy Lin (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?

Whether certain quotes in the Jeremy Lin article should be quoted boxed.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Muboshgu (talk · contribs)
• Bagumba (talk · contribs)
• Chrishmt0423 (talk · contribs)
• Festermunk (talk · contribs)

Editors may take note of Muboshgu's pattern of disruptive editing behaviour [6], [7], [8] of adding disputed content without explaining them on talk page, in violation of WP:REVEXP.Festermunk (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• 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=Jeremy Lin}} --~~~~ 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 on this issue on Jeremy Lin's talk page and a request for third opinion that hitherto has remain unanswered.

• How do you think we can help?

To help determine whether or not the quotes in dispute should be quote boxed.

Festermunk (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy Lin discussion

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

Please consult the 3RR notice board. Editor in question doesn't like our consensus on the page in question, and after some attempt to discuss, devolved into edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the consensus issue has been discussed at length in the talk page, in particular paragraphs 6 - 11, where the distinction between an assume consensus and an established consensus is drawn. The fact that the user is unaware of the distinction should come as no surprise however as the user's has made no attempt [9], [10] and [11] to even explain his/her changes to the article on the talk page. Third party opinionators should also note that the user's first response this content dispute was to take me to the the edit warring administrator's noticeboard instead of trying to go through the normal channels of dispute resolutio first, implying a clear lack of understanding of how the dispute resolution works by the opposing user. Festermunk (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fester, you reverted three separate users more than a half dozen times. Read WP:3RR. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's note: The issue of whether anyone has or has not edit warred is not an appropriate subject of discussion here, per the guidelines of this noticeboard. Please refrain from making any comments upon or evaluations of any other user's conduct. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 18:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Festermunk has been blocked at 18:12, 7 March 2012 with a duration of 24 hours for Edit warring: Jeremy Lin. Table the discussion till the OP is able to respond Hasteur (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I fully concur with my colleague Hasteur's suggestion and believe than nothing further should occur here until Festermunk returns from his block and indicates that he wishes to continue this discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 18:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any policy or guideline violations ( edit-warring aside) in the dispute. Editors should understand that consensus is not always unanimous.—Bagumba (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Blue (LeAnn Rimes song), Blue (Bill Mack song)

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. Blue (LeAnn Rimes song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Blue (Bill Mack song) (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? Okay the main thing is none of the sources on the second page where it concerns Mack is reliable they can all be contradicted by more reliable sources on Billboard.com where I have found that Mack never once released the song as a single. Second of all it breaks the rules as Rimes is most commonly known for the song not Mack and worst an ADMIN started the page and should know better then that. But no matter what I've said I'VE been the one bashed for it because I won't let them break the rules. So if possible I'd rather have someone better in the matter and everything can be seen on the following pages, User:Kww, my archive and talk page, User:Moriori, User:Fastily is the one who suggested I do this so I am. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Kww (talk · contribs) Moriori (talk · contribs) Richhoncho (talk · contribs) I do not want the 3 users mentioned in this dispute to make any comments as they have already bashed me enough. I don't need it. Swifty*talkcontribs 18:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 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".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Blue (LeAnn Rimes song), Blue (Bill Mack song)}} --~~~~ 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? How do you think we can help? The page needs to be moved back to Blue (LeAnn Rimes song) and Blue (Bill Mack song) needs to be redirected to it. Swifty*talkcontribs 18:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Blue (LeAnn Rimes song), Blue (Bill Mack song) discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Clerk's note: It is not appropriate to ask that other editors involved in a dispute not comment here. If you are asking that a page be moved, then this is not the forum for that. See WP:RM for that purpose. If you're complaining about other user's conduct, then WP:ANI is probably appropriate. This forum is to attempt to settle content (only) disputes, ordinarily through discussion and compromise. I'm not going to close this request immediately because I'm not sure what you really want; if it's something other than obtaining a page move or discussing user conduct, please clarify below. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC) I just discovered that there is an unexpired RFC on this subject at the article page, so this is either filed at the wrong venue or violates the guidelines of this noticeboard limiting requests to content matters not undergoing other processes, so I'm closing it after all. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:19, 7 March 2012 (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.

When in Rome (band)

• When in Rome (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

This article suffers from a very very very long edit-war between multiple users with a COI who are apparently all unwilling to discuss anything with each other.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Musicwerks (talk · contribs)
• Catfishcat (talk · contribs)
• 92.25.181.99 (talk · contribs)
• 68.93.99.172 (talk · contribs)
• 89.242.214.157 (talk · contribs)

(plus a lot of different IPs)

• 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=When in Rome (band)}} --~~~~ 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?

There is a discussion on the talk page that does not seem to have achieved anything. I also tried to force discussion with protecting the page but they just started again afterwards.

• How do you think we can help?

I don't actually know. I couldn't find any way to deal with this page - which is why I hope someone watching this page might know a way to handle it.

SoWhy 20:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

When in Rome (band) discussion

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

Template:Cue Can no you not

1. escalate the protection
2. escalate/block violators of WP:3RR
3. explain edit warriors the need of discussion by messaging them on their own talk pages?Curb Chain (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue I agree with this, and also with Yngvadottir's comment on the talk page. The solution here looks like to include both the current lineups, and detail the history of the split as best we can with the sources available. The biggest problem with this appears to be that there aren't very many sources available. From my short review it seems that Salamurai (talk · contribs) has already done as a good a job as can reasonably be expected with the sources that there are. If more reliable sources can be found then we can use them, but if not then the removal of the US lineup and the coverage of the naming dispute are essentially conduct issues, and we should deal with them using Curb Chain's suggestions above. I recommend that this include a reasonably long period of semi-protection if the various IPs continue edit warring after the current page protection expires. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

No argument there but as the history shows, both parties are unwilling to accept a version created by a neutral third-party, which is why I brought it here. One of them left a comment on my talk page, which I will quote here:

Hello SoWhy. I believe you are one of the moderators that oversee the When In Rome (Band) page. My username on Wikipedia is musicwerks and I have been directed via MediaWiki Mail to the Dispute resolution board. I would like to offer some insight as to why the page is under an edit war but I'm afraid my knowledge of how to navigate Wikipedia is limited so I'd like to explain the circumstances behind the edit war here:

When In Rome is a musical band originating in the UK and was formed by myself, Michael Floreale (Wiki ID - musicwerks, ip # 68.93.99.172) with Clive Farrington (Wiki ID - Catfishcat, ip ID's 89.242.220.146, 92.25.181.99, 89.242.214.157) in 1985. The band broke up in 1990 and I reformed the band in 2006 in the USA. Because the 2006 version established itself on the US touring circuit and finished work on a new album (we now have a record contract with Spectra Records USA), and in order to protect the bands interests it successfully obtained a US trademark on the name in 2010. In 2011 the band trademarked the name in the UK as well. In 2009 Clive Farrington reformed When In Rome in the UK. At the time of writing his version has not released any new material, has never performed in the UK and performed 6 shows in the USA in 2011 where (under the terms of our trademark) his version appeared as Clive Farrington and Andrew Mann formerly of When In Rome.

The Wikipedia band page has been used by Clive Farrington to dilute the above facts in order to present his band in a better light. Most of the edits I have made are to correct his many unverified statements. If you note through the view history page most of my edits are reversions to the moderators last edit ( 02:24, 17 February 2012‎ DumbBOT (talk | contribs)‎ which I believe is an acceptable version of the bands history. I can verify the trademarks and all of the information I have given to you by web links but I don't know how to do this on the Wikipedia site.

The reason that I revert the Clive Farrington edits back to the latest moderated version is because we are a professional, working band based in the USA and Wikipedia is a reference used by persons wishing to book the band. I'm afraid that Clive Farrington refuses to recognize our trademark so we cannot settle the dispute with him so I don't know what the solution can be unless the moderators version can be frozen. I do note that you have a policy that states any content that violates any copyrights will be deleted and Clive Farringtons edits do come under that category. I would be grateful for your comments or possible solutions to this matter. March 03rd, 2012 Musicwerks (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Regards SoWhy 08:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Clive Farrington - Andrew Mann - When In Rome - /* When in Rome (band) discussion */ Michael Nuttall says he is the founder and we can only swear and can verify that the truth is in fact that he is not. He trademarked the band name without discussions with original members & has threatened promoters & club owners with legal action. The original line up of Clive Farrington and Andrew Mann toured the US very successfully in 2011 and will return this year. Mr Nuttall has contacted a company that we use to obtain our visas in order to try to stop us from touring. The truth is, Mr Nuttall sold shows and duped people by pretending to be the original band. Original writer/founder/vocalist members are: Clive Farrington & Andrew Mann. The Wiki site mentions that we have past members? The only past member that we have is Mr Nuttall with whom we parted company in 1993 prior to a very successful tour of Brazil. Thank you so much for taking the time to read the true side of this never ending farce and keep up the great work that you continue to do. Clive Farrington _ Andrew Mann - When In Rome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.182.135 (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The real band are performing here on the first and last leg of their forthcoming tour… Appearing at Lost 80's Live Fri 08/10/12 Sacramento, CA Crest Theatre

Sat 08/11/12 Redding, CA Cascade Theatre

Appearing with A Flock Of Seagulls Fri 09/07/12 Oahu, HI Private Function

Sat 09/08/12 Maui, HI Private Function

Cry Baby Lane

• Cry Baby Lane (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?

See this diff. Suddenly, someone considers Cry Baby Lane a lost film. 4chan is some website that illegitimately broadcasts copyrighted material without permission, and I removed it due to analysis of self-published source and lack of secondary sources to back that up. Nevertheless, some user reverted my edits because he thinks that entry deserves to be read.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• George Ho (talk · contribs)
• CyberGhostface (talk · contribs)
• 96.49.78.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 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=Cry Baby Lane}} --~~~~ 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 don't know how I tried to resolved this issue. I simply reverted that entry twice.

• How do you think we can help?

Teach someone about verifying entries.

George Ho (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Cry Baby Lane discussion

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

Template:Cue I can't find anything about the film being lost in the two sources about its recovery.[12][13] They both basically say that there were rumours that the film was banned, but that in actuality it was just gathering dust in Nickelodeon's vaults. Are there any sources that say anything specifically about the film being lost? If not then I agree with George Ho that including this claim would constitute original research. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, 4chan didn't discover it, it was a user on Reddit. I don't know why the anon IP is trying to claim otherwise.

Basically, as I understand it, the film (at the time) only aired once and was believed to be lost. When the user on Reddit found a copy, it got a lot of attention to the point where the director himself was interviewed. The mention that it was found on Reddit was cited to this article which gives a history of the film including the fact it was found by fans on the internet; "That is, until this past week, when members of the social news aggregator Reddit started a campaign to track down a copy of the lost movie. One was quickly found — a clip was uploaded to YouTube to prove its existence — and efforts are under way to convert the VHS recording to something easier for online consumption." They also interviewed the director himself, and his comments in that very same article are included in the Wiki entry as well.

The finding of the film has been discussed on other sites as well like CinemaBlend and DailyDot. I could probably find more. CinemaBlend even argues that the reason why it was officially re-aired on Halloween was because of the furor over the internet.

George Ho said the information violates copyrights, but I don't see how it does. We are not posting links to the video itself, just stating that the film was found and uploaded after a decade of it not being discovered.

As for it being banned, Nick.com itself (seen here) at the very least advertised it's reairing as it being banned. At the very least, there a number of secondary sources that report that the film was believed to have been banned.--CyberGhostface (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, that broadcasting not authorized by Nickelodeon is not legitimate. Those sources are published at the time Cry Baby Lane was rebroadcast; ones that used one of Wikipedia revisions are not reliable because they used Wikipedia article as a derivative... or something like that. Unless sources say that the unauthorized broadcasting not by Nickelodeon is not legitimate, that entry should not be included. --George Ho (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Aha, I think I'm beginning to see the problem here. From reading the DailyDot source, it seems that a lot of the Reddit users thought that the film was lost, but I'm not seeing this claim repeated as fact by any reliable sources. According to our lost film article, a film doesn't count as lost if it's merely sitting in an archive somewhere - it actually has to have disappeared from existence altogether. Despite the fact that some films thought to be lost get discovered again, I don't see any evidence that this particular film was assumed to be lost by any reliable sources, or by any of the major players involved. The same goes for it being banned - all I'm seeing are rumours. (I can't access that trailer though, as it's not available where I am.) I would say that unless we can get more details about the supposed banning, e.g. banned by whom, for what audiences, etc., then it would be simpler to assume that Nick just pulled it themselves. As a compromise, how about we include the rumours about the supposed banning, and include the Reddit users' confusion thinking that the film was lost, but attribute those claims to their sources per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? As I see it, there is no reason we can't include them if we don't assert them as fact. I'm not quite sure what the discussion about copyright violation and unauthorized broadcasting above are getting at - CyberGhostFace, George Ho, could you give me some more details about what is going on here? All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll do my best: some user has possessed a low-quality copy of Cry Baby Lane, used it to transfer digitally in some way without permission from Nickelodeon, and uploaded it to Reddit, 4chan, YouTube, torrent stuff, and somewhere else without uploading or reporting unauthorized copy to Nickelodeon. Now someone has written an information about that as if... long story... --George Ho (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, got it so far. I'm missing the part about how it is involved with the article though. Do you have any handy diffs you could link to? :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The earliest: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cry_Baby_Lane&oldid=443504451. Other history logs contain that same info; should there be more diffs? --George Ho (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I presume that you are talking about the Youtube link? It is basically an advert for the bittorrent download of the film, and I agree that the uploader is very unlikely to have copyright permission. You're right, we cannot include links like these in Wikipedia, even for references - if anyone else is curious about the guidelines on the matter, you can find them at WP:ELNEVER. I haven't checked all the other sites in that version for similar links, but the same would apply for them. More importantly, are there any links like this in any of the recent versions? We need to be strict in keeping these links out of the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

One of previous revisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cry_Baby_Lane&oldid=480791878; some entry removed in the current version. To be honest, they may occur at early revisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cry_Baby_Lane&oldid=444092890; could not find one in recent ones. --George Ho (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I couldn't find any bad links in either of those versions. Could you tell me which links you are talking about in particular? And could you use diffs rather than permalinks? Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This diff, that diff. There were no external links that violate copyrights. --George Ho (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about copyright problems. If there aren't any copyright problems here, then I think I covered the issues already in my first two posts. Are there any other issues that you are concerned about? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Aside from those two issues, I guess... would these entries be copyright problems? Either way, no other issues I'm concerned so far. Also, early revisions have Youtube links that I already showed you; later revisions may not. --George Ho (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

No, there's nothing in those diffs that could be a copyright problem. It would only be a copyright problem for Wikipedia if the text itself was taken from an external site, and that doesn't seem to be the case here. Seems to be more of an editorial issue than a copyright issue. So, to get back to the original point, would you be happy with attributing the rumours about the film being lost/banned to their sources per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? If you and CyberGhostFace can agree on this point, then it will just be down to a matter of how to word it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That's still a secondary source that analyzes primary sources. Secondary source is TheDaily.com; primary sources are illegitimate copies. Get it? Secondary source does not verify them as illegitimate copies. If that doesn't matter to you, then... is there no way to verify primary sources as illegitimate copies? --George Ho (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) List of rediscovered films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has the similar problem about this film. --George Ho (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what the problem is with those links. I mean, is it that the links refer to illegal activity of uploading a copyrighted film? Is there a policy on this? I would guess that simply stating that the film was discovered for the first time in over a decade via illegal means with news articles would be okay as long as we don't link to anything that infringes on the copyrights itself (like a torrent link).--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

...Good point, I think? Still, I wonder if these source verify them silently as illegal unauthorized broadcasting. As long as links to Nickelodeon.com are used instead of illegitimate external links of primary sources, then I'm still unsure about whether to add that back or not. Nevertheless, as long as sources verify illegitimate copies as "illegitimates", and entries will be added back as literally "illegitimate copies", then adding back would be fine. Here: WP:COPYVIO. --George Ho (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any problem writing in the article that the copy found by Reddit was unauthorized/illegitimate if that's what you are asking? But the news articles that interviews the director and tells the history of the film and how it was found that's already used in the article would still be valid, right? I don't see how the articles are infringing on copyrights and the entry itself has no links to anything that would violate copyright. I can bring this to WP:FILM to get further clarification where these type of things stand if you want.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I may be fine with adding that back without problems only if reference of copy in Reddit is verified as illegitimate/unauthorized broadcasting and statement says that a copy is illegitimate. You can bring that to WP:FILM if you want. I don't mind at all. --George Ho (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Oh, yes. Whatever director or Nickelodeon says, just verify it, and then include it with references. --George Ho (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we have a compromise then - everyone seems to be happy with the option of attributing the sources, and clarifying that the copies that the Reddit users are putting out infringe Nickelodeon's copyright. There shouldn't be a problem with verification here, as the Daily Dot source says that the Reddit user's act of uploading the film was "a clear violation of copyright laws". Would you both be happy if the "unauthorized copy" claim is cited to this source? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it may be better to call it "unauthorized distribution". As I understand it, the original VHS copy is allowed under fair use, so we can't claim that particular copy is "unauthorized"; it is the act of copying and distributing it to others that breaks copyright law. Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If saying that "unauthorized distribution" is fine for you, then it is fine for both of us. How is use of original VHS copy a "fair use"; how is the tape used; how much is it used? --George Ho (talk) 07:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Jim Higgins (Irish politician)

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. Jim Higgins (Irish politician) (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 "Snappy" constantly deleting both material relevant to the public figure in question and the picture that accompanies the article. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Snappy (talk · contribs) 86.42.187.164 (talk · contribs) This is ongoing hand has been occurring for over 18months 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".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Jim Higgins (Irish Politician)}} --~~~~ 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 - reverted to original posts and requested Snappy to desist. How do you think we can help? View picture inad information Snappy is deleting and decide if it is superflous. 86.42.187.164 (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Jim Higgins (Irish politician) discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rhino tank

• Rhino tank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

This dispute relates to the “Rhino Tank” M-4 Sherman Tank variant. EyeSerene insists on reverting the text to read “Hedgerows” when these were, in fact, Brocage. This is no mere semantical difference; A hedgerow implies these were thin, spindly affairs that should have been breachable with mere machetes (or even bayonets), whereas a bocage is a wall of rocks and other rubble built up over hundreds of generations that served to clear the fields of said rubble and to hold water for irrigation. This is the difference between a rock wall (these are said to have inspired later HESCO Barriers) versus barbed wire; The rock walls (think about those words, “Rock Walls”) would stop bullets, men, and even vehicles. Attempts to penetrate these rock walls were generally unsuccessful (including using tanks to punch a small hole into the walls, into which “spent artillery shells” though who’s exactly wasn’t mentioned filled with high explosive were shoved), at the cost of an average of 2.3 sappers (demolitions guys) per wall; In each and every such wall addressed, at least one sapper died, and in many of them teams of two died as teams. The use of the word “hedgerow” thus denigrating those who faced these improvised fortresses. It has been pointed out that the rock walls were topped by hedgerows, but these were actually wild thickets. Personally, I’m inclined to let the particularities in this regard drop; As long as the nature of the defenses (high thick rock walls, not spindly ornamental bushes) is correctly addressed.
FWIW, I hope to close this matter quickly. I did try discussing this on the effective talk page, but EyeSerene has chosen to decide that I agreed that these were hedgerows, then waited a few weeks and reverted the page (in other words, as soon as I turned my back). Rather than just accept he was wrong, he seems to WANT me to bring it here. So here it is.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Andering J. REDDSON (talk · contribs)
• EyeSerene (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".)

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Rhino tank}} --~~~~ 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?

Please see Rhino Tank Talk Page -[14]

• How do you think we can help?

Explain in small words the difference between a “hedgerow” (thicket) and a brocage (a rock wall that may or may not be topped by a thicket) to EyeSerene. Explain to him that the stupidity of Americans really doesn’t change the facts- This was a deadly fortress, not a briar patch.

Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Rhino tank discussion

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