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
Algeria	Closed	Lord Ruffy98 (t)	6 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 22 hours
Yasuke	Closed	Tinynanorobots (t)	1 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	20 hours
Talk:Peter Baker (slave trader)	New	Crawdaunt (t)	6 hours	None	n/a	Desertarun (t)	3 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 13:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Syrian civil war

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by DIREKTOR on 14:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Syrian civil war (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DIREKTOR (talk · contribs)
• FunkMonk (talk · contribs)
• Lothar von Richthofen (talk · contribs)
• Zombiecapper (talk · contribs)
• Futuretrillionaire (talk · contribs)
• Sopher99 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

No change perceived as having a negative impact on the rebel cause can be entered into the article. Being the graphic depiction of the conflict, the infobox is the focus of the WP:STONEWALLING:

• Israel, in spite of sources explicitly stating its involvement in the conflict, cannot be entered into the box. A graphic representation of Israeli military actions against the Assad faction would obviously cast a bad light on the rebels.
• In spite of their fighting both the rebels and the government in this conflict, the Kurds must be kept on the rebel side in the box.
• Similarly, non-combatants like Saudi Arabia and Qatar must also be listed in the rebel column, not once - but twice.

In short, combatants shelling and bombing in Syrian territory are excluded, while non-combatants are included for the rebels. Kurds fighting the rebels are kept in the rebels' column. The inclusion of huge, pointless lists of "sinister" Syrian government agencies also cannot be amended. The POV is so thick one can barely see the article.

The cornucopia of ever-changing, irrelevant "excuses" is also a thing of wonder. Arbitrary declarations of supposed "undue weight" and proclamations regarding the Kurds' "true allies" abound. Misleading "precedents" were brought forth as well, articles on wars with four or five or six warring sides which always use a simplified two-column infobox out of necessity (the template only provides for three columns) - but all three-sided conflicts like the Syrian civil war naturally use three columns. All of these essentially appear to be without significance, as none have any impact on the simple fact that the Kurdish faction, fighting rebels(!), is listed in the rebels' column; or that Israel is sourced as a side-combatant in the conflict. -- Director (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A couple ultimately-pointless RfCs. On the first occasion the consensus was clearly in favor of amending the infobox (9 users in support, 3 opposed), but participants were simply edit-warred into the ground (primarily by Sopher99). Most recently, frustrated users posted a second RfC which unfortunately garnered input from only three users, two of whom (Knowledgekid87, Zombiecapper) supported the stonewalled amendments. -- Director (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

Uninvolved input on the three main issues would be appreciated. -- Director (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by FunkMonk

I think the issue about the third row is the most urgent one. (Following copied from a RfC) Kurdish factions in the Syrian civil war have generally not aligned themselves with either the Syrian government or the rebels, so it has been proposed several times before that they should have a third row for themselves in the infobox, since they fight both of those factions.[1][2][3] There is precedent in the article 2012–2013 Syrian Kurdistan conflict, as well as in the Northern Mali conflict (2012–present) and Algerian civil war, which have the exact same or similar division of factions. However, though the prior discussion has favoured a third row, three or four users keep reverting the change without any valid explanation, though "undue weight" is being repeated over and over by one editor.

Opening comments by Lothar von Richthofen

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.

Previous Kurd/PYD-related discussions: Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_15#RV_Kurdish_from_infobox, Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_16#PKK-PYD, Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_16#Assad.2FAnti-Assad_forces (note FT's position), Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_17#Third_row_for_Kurds, Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_17#"Opposition", Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_18#kurds_(third_column?), Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_18#Kurds_as_combatant_#3_again, Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_18#fourth_column, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive778#Organized_edit-warring

Will post statement later. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

WRT the first point (Israel), I'm not terribly invested in it. I think it does merit a mention in the infobox, but I'm not sure how best to represent it. The airstrike is really the main event Israel has had a part in, otherwise we're just talking about shooting whoever is firing artillery westwards so carelessly as to land shells in the occupied Golan (the army, generally speaking—just how the geographic orientation of combat there plays out) and beefing up border security to keep Islamist rebels out.

The second point is far more important in my mind. The PYD (one Kurdish group linked to the PKK—neither "PKK" nor "Kurds" broadly construed) fights rebels (Battle of Ras al-Ayn) at least as often as it does the government ([4]). I absolutely and categorically reject any attempt to make this out to be a matter of "undue weight" (explained in detail here)—this is a question of factual accuracy, plain and simple.

As for noncombatants, previous consensus at this RfM permitted them, though the more I think about it, the more useless their presence seems to me. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Zombiecapper

Firstly, thank you Director for finally initiating these proceedings.

The current combatant configuration of the info box should remain as two columns.

Unlike other preceding Wikipedia civil war articles, the anti-assad factions are extremely fractured. There is no clear governing structure. Although all the factions have one key objective - to overthrow the Assad regime.

If we were to grant the PYD an individual column, a precedent would then be set to provide other (SNC non-aligned) factions autonomy, by way of providing them with their own column. We could easily end up with four or five combatants, I am sure everyone agrees that would be hopeless.

To the extent of what this civil war is about....it is a battle between two different options...two different paths for the Syrian people. One path leads to a continuation of the neo-baathist Assad republic or two a "Absent Assad non neo-baathist republic."

Therefore, I submit that we have the following combatant titles (bold and break-line, absent of flag and/or insignia): Government (Representing the Assad government and their allies) and Insurgents or Anti-Assad Forces (with all the factions/insignia listed directly below in order of political and military influence within that camp).

On the subject of Israel, currently the air strike has not yet been acknowledged...the Israelis governments intentions, all though strongly suspected, remain to be confirmed by senior leaders. It should not yet hold a place in the info box. User talk:Zombiecapper.

Opening comments by Futuretrillionaire

So I guess the rfc failed and one of the parties decided open up this. Anyways, the current infobox in the article is based on the model used in articles such as Iraq War, Mexican Drug War, and War on Terror, in which the government and its supporters are put in one column and the insurgents/irregulars are put in the other, with a note included that indicates that there is also fighting between insurgent groups. The Kurds have played a very minor role in the conflict, and there is no source defining the scope of this civil war as a 3-way battle. Therefore, giving a 3rd column for the Kurds is completely undue weight. I don't see any problems with the current model, and I don't see any need to screw it up.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources like this ("Both sides committing war crimes in Syria") clearly indicate that there are two sides in this conflict, not three. The arguments for a 3rd column are based on WP:OR, and not backed by reliable sources.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Sopher99

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.

The infobox Should remain as two columns. Adding a third row is undue weight as the civil war is beyond overwhelmingly a battle between the opposition and the government (in casualties, combatant numbers, territory, and reliable sources). There is a not a single reliable media source describing this as a three way fight. The PYD leader in fact has described the Kurdish factions as being friendly with the FSA. Sopher99 (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

We already have the solution of putting a double line between the rebels and the Kurds, plus a note linking to the Kurdistan conflict. If this doesn't satisfy, then it is best to keep the kurds out of the infobox and elaborate on them in the article. Sopher99 (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

On the subject of Israel, it should not be added anymore than Lebanon/Jordan/Turkey all of which has several casualties but are not considered combatants in the civil war. Mainly because they are not fighting eachother. They are participants in incidental events, not belligerents. Sopher99 (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by EllsworthSK

Frankly, I am not really sure what is this about. Is this about Kurds in third column or about infobox in general as listed in dispute overview? I´ll take a shot with later and make these points
1, Israel shelled also FSA position in Golan, in response to that FSA released a statement warning Israel from meddling into Syrian affairs [5] listing them as combatant on side of rebels is POV of POVs since no direct support was ever proven and is only propagated by Iran and Syrian gov
2, Frankly, sticking the support countries in the infobox seems counter-productive to me, especially given that we don´t know if support which goes to jihadists in Syria is from Gulf private donors or Gulf government (KSA, Qatar). Also listing countries twice, I don´t see much point in it. If it was up to me I´d remove it outright and keep it in the article only.
3, Unnecessary many combatants under government section. Agreed - would keep only army, Shabiha and foreign militants. Lijan militias are widely unreported and unknown, Jays al-Shabi was first heard from US government and that´s that, mukhabarat is not direct combatant etc. As for Iran, from what I read their main role is in support, logistic and training not in direct combat. Remove or move to support section.
4,Kurds - well I can see it from both sides and I don´t think that any of them is explicitly wrong. There are many aspects and I am really on line in this case. I will just simply stick with a consensus. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil war discussion

There seems to be some very clear POV pushing with this dispute. The best way to solve this dispute is to take the issues one at a time.

First Issue

The first issue we'll solve is

• Israel, in spite of sources explicitly stating its involvement in the conflict, cannot be entered into the box.

I perceive this dispute to be to determine weather we can verify from a reliable source that Israel is militarily involved in the conflict. For this:

• Please provide the most reliable sources to verify that "Israel" is militarily involved in the conflict. You can also include sources which verify Israels involvement.

Please comment below weather you think my understanding of the issue is correct and if you agree to solving this issue this way.

• DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) Agree -- Director (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• FunkMonk (talk · contribs)Agree. FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• Lothar von Richthofen (talk · contribs)Agree/Disagree sign your name
• Zombiecapper (talk · contribs)Agree/Disagree sign your name
• Futuretrillionaire (talk · contribs)Agree --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• Sopher99 (talk · contribs)Agree/Disagree sign your name

Another thing I note is that the "commanders and leaders" box seems to be overcrowded, I should include the the highest commander/leader from each Belligerents Eng.Bandara (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me say first off that noone is contending Israel is one of the main combatants in this conflict (that's a straw man), merely that it warrants inclusion as a marginal combatant, which is imo beyond debate. After several border artillery exchanges, Israel had launched (either one or two) air strikes against targets in Syria. This is nothing spectacular, but its a military conflict and warrants mention in the military conflict infobox - particularly one where non-combatants like Qatar and Saudi Arabia are listed twice. Turkey's involvement, for example, is comparable to that of Israel, with minor border clashes and shelling.

In my opinion, mere confirmation of a country's military involvement warrants inclusion in the relevant infobox in and of itself. However, even if we raise the bar, in addition to the said (undisputed) military involvement, respectable mainstream news agencies in Israel and the US (not to speak of Syria, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.) do explicitly interpret these events as Israel's involvement in the war:

• NBC News: "Israel drawn into Syria conflict, fires missile across border"
• Los Angeles Times: "With airstrike, Israel steps into Syria conflict"
• Wall Street Journal: "A strike draws Israel further into Syria's conflict.."
• Haaretz: "Israel enters the civil war in Syria"
• The Telegraph: "Israel 'considering further air strikes on Syria'"
• Financial Times: "Israel might convince itself that further military strikes are necessary."

etc.. The proposal is to enter Israel in the infobox, clearly denoting its non-association with any other warring parties (via the usual horizontal dividing line). -- Director (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and please note both FunkMonk ("your Assad dictatorship propagandizing will fail!") and myself ("YOU ARE BROKEN. WE ARE LEGION.") have been harassed on our talkpages over this thread. -- Director (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I would encourage you in that case to sign your agreement in the section Eng has set for all parties. From looking at the previous disputes I can see this is a hot topic with many strong opinions involved. There is literally tens of thousands of words on talk pages and discussions about this and related topics so lets try keep things brief if possible. I would encourage all parties involved to take a read of WP:TIGER and continue the levelheaded discussion that persisted so far. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No, Turkey cannot be compared to Israel. First, Turkey is in support section because it supports rebels. For a long time it hosted FSA HQ (symbolical HQ but still closest thing to HQ there was), it gives shelter to Syrian rebels and defectors and supports opposition with both arms and money. Border shelling are minor incident that have no weight in the infobox and Turkey was there before that happened. So far I´ve seen no reports about Israel arming rebels or giving them safe passage through Golan or providing C2 support. Listing Israel as combatant, and above that on side of rebels who are anything but Israel-friendly, is POV. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That is the {{Infobox military conflict}} template. Its about military conflict. Its not about political or logistical support. When I say Turkey's role is "comparable to Israel" - I'm referring to the military involvement of Turkish armed forces (border clashes). If we had a situation where Israel was, in fact "arming rebels or giving them safe passage through Golan etc." - but without the military involvement of Israel, I would not support the inclusion of Israel. Especially when we've got an entire separate article devoted to precisely that kind of foreign support - with a note in the infobox pointing the reader towards it. Again I stress the infobox is about military conflict, nothing else. If we, contrary to sources(!), selectively omit and add factions regardless of their military involvement, we are creating a POV picture of the conflict. -- Director (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

1, What FunkMonk wrote

2, Infobox lists also non-military participants as was established in many articles before (like Vietnam war or Korean war). Participants in military conflict which significantly helped shift the conflict one way or another by either direct military help or indirect - support. Israel falls in none of these criteria and again - Turkey was in infobox before cross-border shelling.

3, Israeli airstrike was not part of the ongoing military conflict, it was not response to either Syrian army offensive against rebels or vice versa, it was simply prevention of arms reaching third-state actor (Hezbollah). It is separate WP:EVENT. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources provided by DIREKTOR defines Israel as a combatant in the conflict. They only vaguely say it's somehow more involved than before. All of them refer to one incident, and now are probably outdated. Israel itself has said that its policy is not to get involved in the Syrian conflict.. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Wow. :) Now that's really "raising the bar". I guess "Israel enters the civil war in Syria" is unclear and misleading. We should find a source that says "Yes, we define Israel as a combatant in the Syrian civil war". Then we'll probably need to find one that says "yes, we most definitely define Israel as a combatant"...

The bare fact that Israel and Syrian factions have engaged in border clashes and air strikes is sufficient cause for inclusion. Sources provided in support of that fact should suffice alone. Additional sources that explicitly (and irrefutably) state Israel has entered this conflict should serve merely as the final confirmation that ends all debate. Here, amazingly, even the latter are rejected by you fine gentlemen. All I can say is.. wow.

2. Just... no. We simply do not require that combatants "help shift the conflict one way or another" before we include them in the infobox. What matters is if they're combatants. I don't have to go beyond World War II and World War I, but frankly I consider it kind of beneath me to even respond to this seriously, say with some extensive list of the dozens of mc infoboxes that include combatants who's involvement did not "shift the conflict one way or another". And, of course, the infobox guide itself states that the parameter is for "countries whose forces took part in the conflict". You're just inventing your own custom criteria at this point.

3. The sources say otherwise. And the idea that they somehow don't, to me seems pretty laughable. This isn't really "point #3", its essentially point #1 repeated.

And so it goes on. Red herrings, straw men and just plain wrong claims... -- Director (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Lets take this one issue at a time please, Israel first. It is quite clear that this issue is highly sensitive, However I'm encouraged by the level of POV pushing has seemed to have reduced. There seems to be some misunderstanding about what countries to be included in the info-box. From what I am seeing form the above dialog is:

• Whether the 'involvement' has to make a major shift in the combat theater
• Whether the 'involvement' has to take a particular side in the combat
• Whether the 'involvement' has to be purely militarily or is 'logistics and supply' sufficient to warrant inclusion

After studying articles from other civil conflicts, and my own logical thinking, it is of my opinion that.

• The main policy for inclusion is based on militarily action during the conflict
• The involvement does not have to make a major shift in the combat outcome
• "logistics and supply" involvement is not sufficient to warrant inclusion
• Taking a particular side in the conflict is irrelevant to whether it should be included, however where to include it may need to be discussed

The sources the user has posted above are good and satisfy WP verifiability policy. Based on these I find

• Israel has a clear militarily involvement in the conflict, regardless of whether its a full drawn out involvement to the end
• It is not clear, as to which side Israeli military action was targeted against, going by the source it simply states "Syria" So I'd assume its against the Syrian government.

If editors can agree to work out the following questions we can decide where to include Israel.

• If Israeli is action was directed towards a particular side then list it under the opposing side. The info box is based purely on militarily action, it does not require to have a political affiliation with that side
• If Israeli action was directed towards both sides, it should be listed on a third column.

Lastly it would greatly help if everyone focused on these issues, so we can take this one at a time. Eng.Bandara (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Israel did not attack either side in the civil war. It attacked an arms shipment going to Hezbollah. Isreal is involved in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, not the Syria conflict. Israel attacking Hezbollah is nothing unusual and has happened before the Syrian civil war even began. I repeat Isreal itself denies being involved in the Syria conflict. It has said its policy is not to get involved in the Syrian conflict.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

[source] states "With the attack in Syria, Israel took its first overt military step into the "Arab Spring" .... But whether by intent or circumstance, Israel has inserted itself into a civil war that thus far had very little to do with it". Going by this I'm happy to justify Israel into a third column. Again I emphasize this military involvement not political. Israel may have policy of non political involvement, however by attacking it is involved regardless of weather its politically involved or not. Eng.Bandara (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't have to stack the infobox with combatants. Countries that had both minimal and short term engagements can be elaborated on in the article, and not the infobox. The Infobox is not an encyclopedia which holds every single detail to the point where it gets controversially absurd. There is no rule that the infobox has to have every "combatant" particularly if there are major arguments against identifying them as a combatant. Sopher99 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Second of all if Israel is taking its first step into the Arab spring, that is directly saying Israel is taking its first step into political issues. It does not mean its an official combatant. Sopher99 (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Military involvement does not mean its a combatant, combat (Noun; Fighting between armed forces) is what determines a combatant (notice the "combat" in combatant. Israel and Syria are not fighting each-other). Sopher99 (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree we don't have to list combatants with 'minimal to short term engagements' with the principal of maintaining clarity. However in case of this conflict as there are not many military actors, it wouldn't hurt to list Israel, when it is clear that Israel had in fact lunched military attacks into Syria, engaging itself in the civil war. I am satisfied that Israel meets the criteria to be listed as a Belligerents in this conflict. Eng.Bandara (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the proposal is to include Israel as a seperate combatant (1a), and divided with a horizontal line. -- Director (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is correct, However I would like some responses from the other members, instead of just staying quite if you don't have any disagreement. Eng.Bandara (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The source you quoted said 'Israel has inserted itself into a civil war' - this becomes 'it is clear that Israel had in fact lunched military attacks into Syria, engaging itself in the civil war.' -- are they homologous terms? 'inserted' and 'engaged'? - just saying because one has to watch for pov pushing. to me they suggest different types of thing, those words Sayerslle (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Israel only launched an attack on a weapon depot that was going to be sent to Hezbollah,israeli involvement is minimal ,and it doesn't favor both sides especially the rebels. Abdo45 (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you addressed the issues with the inclusion parameters we discussed above. Otherwise this discussion doesn't appear to be going anywhere, I'll wait another 48 hours if flow of discussion is still being constantly derailed, I will mark for closure as unable to reach consensus. I would suggest formal mediation as a next step. Eng.Bandara (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Eng.Bandara for your efforts to resolve this dispute logically, peaceably, and with a neutral perspective. I've only contributed occasionally to this article but have been following this discussion. I wasn't convinced by either side but I think the guidelines you've set down are appropriate in this case. -Darouet (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC) I have struck my previous comments. -Darouet (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

...aaand our "volunteer" friend turns out to be a sock. What a surprise. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It kind of is, actually... :) -- Director (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You're telling me there's nothing fishy about a guy who makes a beeline for DRN in less than 20 edits 5 hours after registering? [6] ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Particularly the fact that the Eng.Bandara came to you Direktor and only you "for help" with the sock issue? Not to mention that you both are big in editing Sri Lanka related articles? Sopher99 (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

@Lothar. I didn't check his contribs (why would I?).. hence - pretty surprised. Of course, from the point he was reported I realized he was probably a sock, but not before.

@Sopher99. Laughing out loud. There must be something vewy fishy here, must there, Sopher? Actually, I never edited any even relmotely Sri Lanka-related article or topic but once in my entire 7-year, 45,000-edit activity on this project. And that was a couple days ago when Eng.Bandara asked me to participate in an RfC. So I did, briefly. With one post. When the user asked me to somehow help him with his sock accusation, I said "I have no idea whether or not you're a sock" [7], and refused to participate. Not that it would make any difference whatsoever whether I did or didn't (checkuser rarely makes mistakes). -- Director (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

How about we just accept that he almost certainly is a sock? It seems to me that the only thing that matters is whether we need to start over. We seem to be mostly in agreement that that's not necessary, so I suggest we simply drop it and go on from where we left off. CarrieVS (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Striking that last bit. It did look that way to me, though I explained it poorly - what I meant was that (until now) I hadn't seen any clear suggestion that anyone had a problem with Eng.Bandara's actual input, and it looked (and still does) to me as though a general agreement was reached not to simply strike his comments on principle - they've now stayed un-struck for nearly two days, after the editor who struck them self-reverted. But in any case what I meant by "drop it" was the discussion immediately above about how obvious it was or wasn't that he was a sock; if anyone has any problem with Eng.Bandara's mediation (and now someone has said that they do), then I am certainly not suggesting that that be ignored. CarrieVS (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That is disgusting! I thought these people were supposed to be professionals? I'm sorry that this has happened to you all.-Darouet (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Israel has attacked and killed Syrian forces at least two times, perhaps three. One time near the Golan last year, then the facility this year, and perhaps also a convoy. So no, there isn't only one single incident. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't mean he won't say it was "one incident" another fifteen times. Must have told the guy about as often. -- Director (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The Golan incident was not an aggressive action, it was a response to army gunners with shitty aim. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

False dichotomy. It was responding to army gunners with shitty aim with aggressive action. Its kind of like the aforementioned "they weren't bombing the Syrian army, they were just stopping arms shipments to Hezbollah".

And please lets leave the discussion legible? Can we tone down the POV that much? -- Director (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment from un-involved editor

I'm not involved in this dispute at all (I'm actually having another dispute above this one) but I just wanted to make a quick comment: I have no idea whether editor Eng.Bandara is a sock or not but I believe that there's no reason to strike out his comments if they where reasonable and WP:CIVIL and to take for granted almost immediately that he in fact is a sock puppet. Having been on the receiving end of an unjust indefinite block after an accusation of sock-puppetry myself (luckily lifted), I now think that admins should be much more careful and thorough before blocking somebody and editors should try to adhere as much as possible to WP:AGF. Just my 2 cents. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Checkuser rarely lies. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

CarrieVS makes the assertion that there is general "agreement" to continue from the point that Eng.Bandara left off. But just from the edit-warring over whether to strike his comments, it seems to me that that is an ill-advised assertion. I propose a simple straw poll to gauge this. For those parties participating in the mediation, are you satisfied with Eng.Bandara's mediation, or do you want to start over? A simple satisfied or not satisfied with at most a sentence of explanation will suffice. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not satisfied - Biased editor. He didn't lead the dispute even close to a resolution.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oh what's the use.. Eng.Bandara more-or-less came out in support of adding Israel. Naturally everyone supporting the addition will say he's "Satisfied" whereas everyone against will claim "Not satisfied" and try to "strike from the record" anything he said or did. I myself liked his approach, particularly his points above.. of course, that's all (quote) "Assad propagandizing" and must be opposed at all costs.

P.s. I have no idea how you've concluded the sock was "biased" on this issue, Futuretrillionaire, but at this point I'm getting used to random statements.. The reason he couldn't bring the dispute closer to resolution is simply because it cannot be resolved through general agreement. No matter what anyone says or does Sopher will oppose the addition of Israel to the infobox, and so will presumably Futuretrillionaire.

I myself follow a simple rule from the infobox guide and generally adhered-to throughout Wiki: "add countries whose armed forces took part in the conflict". The rest I see as POV-pushing ("its not really a conflict", "its not really taking part in", "its not really armed forces", "its not really a country", etc..). -- Director (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it the rule to add countries however glancing and tangential and miniscule their 'taking part in the conflict'? is there a problem of UNDUE WEIGHT at all. since the strike , which was reported widely in RS as targeting stuff israel feared was Hezbollah bound, it seems nothing has happened on the Zionist front. is undue weight an issue at all? just asking. its not "add countries who's..." btw- the apostrophe indicates a letter is missing - it is short for 'who is' what you've written Sayerslle (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Its the rule to follow published sources [8][9][10][11] and not give a damn about what random internet users think is "tangetial", "miniscule" or "undue". I believe its called WP:V.

Hezbollah is an ally of Assad in this conflict. But even if it were not, it is not up to us to interpret primary sources such as Israeli public statements and claims. Israel may or may not have actually been targeting Hezbollah (in flying over the sovereign territory of two countries and attacking the military of the latter), that's up to sources to confirm, but either way it is not up you to decide whether or not these events are a part of the Syrian war. I'll thank you not to bore others and myself with your personal OR anymore. (Also thanks so much for the grammar lesson; very amusing.) -- Director (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

THIS DR/N DISCUSSION IS ON HOLD UNTIL ALL INVOLVED PARTIES AGREE TO MOVE FORWARD!

The original volunteer has been blocked for sockpuppetry. A request has been made for all parties to decide on whether to start this filing over. The discussion cannot continue until a decision has been made.

--Amadscientist (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I myself don't believe there is much chance participants will agree on anything. What is required is additional uninvolved input to form a consensus on the three issues. -- Director (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Lists of tropical cyclone names

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by 174.226.4.31 on 20:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Lists of tropical cyclone names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hurricanehink (talk · contribs)
• Jason Rees (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Every six years the national weather service uses the same names for hurricanes and typhoons with a few exceptions. We've attempted to turn over the 2012 list a few times given 2012 season has officially ended. But two users have been persisantly disputing the changes claiming it was original research. In addition they keep intentially spelling the names wrong. Each time we correct they keep reverting to the version with many names poorly spelled

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We've explained the 2012 season is over but they've insisted their changes are right and that every year anew set of names is created each year.

How do you think we can help?

Come up with a compromise

Opening comments by Hurricanehink

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.

[12] - the National Hurricane Center has not updated the list for 2018 yet, and the names that were there are correct. I protected the page since the anon kept changin be names incorrectly (like Bret to Brett). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Jason Rees

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.

Our list of tropical cyclone names is imo the most accurate list of tropical cyclone names around as it trumps the WMO list of names and we do not add the list of names until we have a source telling us what the names are. While it is true that the names for the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific hurricane seasons rotate every six years, it could be that the WMO decides to add a new list of names or completely change the naming scheme like they did in 2008 with the Australian region list of names. It is also worth noting that the IP is changing the names to what they think is the correct spelling of the name rather than what is the official spelling of the name. I oppose any addition of the names for 2018 until the lists are put out by the NHC/WMO due to the rules on Original Research.Jason Rees (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Lists of tropical cyclone names 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.

Who filed this?

Who is 174.226.4.31? — nerdfighter^(academy) 21:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Compromise

Would you consider adding the rotated 2012 names for 2018, under a description stating something like "The following names are predicted based on WMO's system of repeating hurricane names every 6 years". The description probable needs some clean up, but would either of you be ok with that? — nerdfighter^(academy) 21:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't see the reason, since the same could be said for 2019, 2020, etc. Not to mention, the NHC still lists only the 2012 list (not 2018). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I dont personally see the need to include the predicted 2018 names just yet since it is Original Research and due to the fact that we are not here to predict which names will be removed at this years Hurricane Committee in April. Personally i dont see the need to remove the 2012 names just yet and add in the 2018 names as some people might be curious to see what names were used last year still and it would lead to more problems with people marking Sandy as retired since we have the outside chance of it becoming like Gordon 1994 and not being retired.Jason Rees (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft Office 2013

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Codename Lisa on 11:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Microsoft Office 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Codename Lisa (talk · contribs)
• Dogmaticeclectic (talk · contribs)
• Sonicdrewdriver (talk · contribs)
• Greglovern (talk · contribs)
• FormerIP (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Recently, magazines have started dedicating coverage to an issue of Microsoft Office 2013: Apparently, the retail versions may only be installed on one computer only. Purchasing a replacement computer means purchasing a new Office.

But how much coverage should we dedicate to this issue? Does WP:SYNTH allow us to say "this might not be legal in Europe" from a source that neither mentions Microsoft, nor Office 2013? (let alone the issue at hand). In addition, there are a lot of unreferenced info. (e.g "Microsoft publicly stated that this change was meant to reduce (or, even eliminate) the pirating of Office that has been rampant for years" fails to be verified against its source.) Should they be kept just because one editor keeps reverting their removal? What about speculations? Is keeping them not against WP:NOT?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This issue has been discussed twice in Talk:Microsoft Office 2013. There are two separate discussion threads. All mentioned involved users have participated except User:Dogmaticeclectic, who prefers reverting instead of talking.

How do you think we can help?

As Max Payne says "a millions of dollars question I didn't have the answer for."

Opening comments by Dogmaticeclectic

First of all, WP:CON has already been established at the article's talk page, with all essentially agreeing except for User:Codename Lisa (who at first attempted to ignore it altogether while simultaneously pretending that the issue had already been addressed, and later added the content to the lead as discussed but did so in a manner that made it quite difficult for the average reader to spot). Second, this sentence on that talk page (not by me) - combined with WP:WEIGHT - summarizes my opinion quite well: "From the perspective of news coverage by reliable sources, *the* most discussed new attribute of the retail version of Office 2013 is that it is locked to one machine forever." Third, this dispute is not about the content (WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:NOT, etc.) - since there exist numerous WP:RS for that, including the original Microsoft EULA itself - but about the currently-existing content's visibility (User:Codename Lisa is trying to change the subject again). (Fourth, to quote myself this time: "My responses to you were included in my edit summaries. In such cases, I do not think it is necessary to duplicate discussion.") Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Sonicdrewdriver

My personal opinion is that it shouldn't be included too heavily, simply because straight answers are hard to find. We have sources that back up the currently-included point, but there are other sources available that contradict it. I understand that it's a major issue, not something small, that's why I believe some coverage is good, but we shouldn't be alarmist when Microsoft themselves have been known to contradict our summary of their terms. They've failed to respond to direct questioning when I've put it to them (so far) as an organisation, but technical support staff from the company have made statements that muddy the water significantly, if not completely contradict us. drewmunn talk 12:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Greglovern

My opinion is that this is very important information that should be briefly stated in the lead and then stated in more detail in the body. For people who have been buying retail editions of Office for many years, this is a very surprising change, and one which can lead to an expensive ($400 for retail Office Pro) mistake.

When we read very surprising information that is mentioned only in passing, it is human nature to assume that the source must be mistaken. To state very surprising information only in passing is to do a disservice to Wikipedia readers. That disservice is compounded when the information could have helped readers avoid an expensive mistake. A reader who makes such an expensive mistake after reading the Wikipedia entry would naturally feel betrayed by Wikipedia.

In accordance with the Wikipedia principle of giving "due weight" (see neutral point of view), surprising information should be given the prominence that would be expected by a reasonable reader, so that the reader takes notice instead of assuming that Wikipedia is mistaken. A reasonable reader would expect such a surprising change to be included in the lead and then stated in detail in the body.

Microsoft representatives who have been asked about this change in the license agreement have given wildly varying answers. However, the license agreement itself is very clear, and in previous retail Office versions Microsoft meant exactly what they said in the license agreement. Withholding information because we fear Microsoft might really mean something different is not in accord with Wikipedia policy.

Where Codename Lisa says "consensus was reached" regarding her dispute with my edits in January and early February, I disagree. I had stopped when I felt I'd done as much as I could, given that per Wikipedia policy I could only quote Microsoft's license agreement and could not "interpret" it in any way. I still believed that the information was not given "due weight". Greg (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by FormerIP

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.

Opening comment by uninvolved editor: FleetCommand

Without naming any name, here is my observation of the article in regard to the current dispute:

• WP:LEAD problem: Lead contains novel info that do not appear in the body
• Content problem: Article contains contents without source and original research, including two instances of improper synthesis of sources, in the disputed area. These must either be deleted or properly referenced. Attempt(s) to reinstate them without direct quotation from a reliable source must cease immediately. Tabloids are not reliable sources and weak/half-hearted statements made by the most reliable sources must not be turned into full-fledged bashful or praising statements in the article. (They must be disregarded.)
• I do not name any names but among the editors, there are those who really seem to be trying to improve the article and communicate with others. At the opposite end of the spectrum are editor(s) whose editing nature is tendentious editing and their communication skills needs a lot of improvements.
• All editors must immediately cease commenting on the contributors and start commenting on the contents. In additions, all editors should refrain from reverting unless there is a clear sign that their contribution will go uncontested. Tags are a semi-exception. Problem tags must remain on the article unless there is a clear sign that the dispute is resolved.

Fleet Command (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft Office 2013 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.

Question

I am a little confused about the comment concerning WP:SYNTH and Office '13 in Europe. Could someone please clarify? Thanks. — nerdfighter^(academy) 18:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

WP:SYNTH says that an editor should not advance his own point of view based on material in source, when the said point of view is not in the source. Now, the article says "This may be illegal in the European Union", referring to the new licensing terms but does not provide a source that explicitly confirm it. Existing sources do not directly back this up. One of the sources is about Oracle, not Microsoft. Extending it to Microsoft based on an editors interpretation is WP:SYNTH and not allowed here. An expert must analyze the court ruling to see whether it applies to Microsoft or not, then we can cite him in the article. The other source is The Register which says "European courts tending to lean in favor of consumer rights" but does not specify how much do they lean. There are a couple of other statements about piracy and Trojan Horse-style which have elements of WP:SYNTH in them. There is another problem with this sentence which does not apply to your question.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 174.252.34.34 on 07:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC).

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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved C.Fred (talk · contribs) anthonyJ Lock (talk · contribs) Otherone (talk · contribs) Locke Cole (talk · contribs) Casilber (talk · contribs) Dispute overview An attempt to fix a horribly viscous pagemove of WP:Apathy is being met by resistance. Users cited have threatened anyone who tried with blocking. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Attempted to move the page back, explaining although the site is not censored the page should have a more user friendly title How do you think we can help? Compromise. The profanity can stay but the title is way too much Opening comments by C.Fred 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. Opening comments by AnthonyJ Lock I was monitoring the recent changes page as I normally do and saw that the user in question had blanked Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism and redirected it to Wikipedia:Apathy where he had copy/pasted the content from Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism I reverted both edits and warned the user, the user then proceeded to revert both edits back and his/her only reasoning was that the title was profane. This was when User:C.Fred came in and reverted both edits again. User had been warned 3 times (all by me) and asked to take his issue to WP:RM or the pages talk page as shown here User_talk:174.252.34.34. In conclusion I do not believe this article should be moved to Wikipedia:Apathy AnthonyJ Lock (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Edit: This was never discussed on a talk page prior to this being filed. AnthonyJ Lock (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Otherone 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. Opening comments by Locke Cole 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. Opening comments by Casilber 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. Wikipedia:Apathy 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 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.

Hungarian people

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Csendesmark on 18:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Hungarian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Csendesmark (talk · contribs)
• Iadrian yu (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A Romanian editor wants to remove pictures which are taken in ex, now not Hungarian territories It's started with a puppet edit user:Electrifier1999, after a semi-page-protection

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We had an unsuccessfully discuss on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

Restoring the original state of the page

Opening comments by Iadrian yu

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.

I disagree that this was discussed. If one comment is a discussion...and that comment is confusing because it is not related to the problem [13], talk page, while ignoring everything on the talk page. I will respond by numbers for better readability.

• 1) I started this section several days ago(February 19), not the sock puppet (first comment of the sock on February 24), the sock puppet did`t participated in the discussion simply because he left only one comment and we ignored him.
• 2) Is it important that I am a Romanian editor? Should that affect this problem in any way? How did you concluded that I am a Romanian editor?
• 3) There are several images of places outside Hungary. This pictures are nothing special, some images of Churches, a simple panorama of a village with Hungarian majority and etc..
  • I stated on the talk page, if we have a simple image of a Hungarian village outside Hungary should we add all one million Hungarian villages to the gallery? What makes that one random village special to be added to the gallery?
  • All Catholic Churches build under Hungarian administration? Don`t forget that the Kingdom of Hungary was a multi-ethnic state, if it was constructed under Hungarian administration it is not necessarily Hungarian.
  • Gothic church of Košice, Slovakia - According to the researchers the town had a German majority until the mid-16th century - so why would this be on Hungarian people article? It would rather go on Germans if anywhere.
• 4)The article is about Hungarian people, I fail to see the connection in this images with the article except that it may be used as POV pushing because I compared all other articles on wikipedia about ethnic groups and none of them contained images of random places outside that country. Ex: (Serbs (have a lot of places inhabited by them in Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia and yet not a singe image of them here), Poles, Romanians, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Germans, Italians, Slovenes, Austrians, Ukrainians, French people, Macedonians (ethnic group).. you name it...). I don`t see why should we have it here? Except if it is something special, that is attributed only to the Hungarian people. As the folklore and traditions which images I have left on the article. Adrian (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Answers by CsendesMark

(I gave numbers to your other questions too, please forgive me that, but it was easier to answer that way)

• 1) Yes, you started on the talk page, and you've been already caught and much more times been accused of having puppets.
• User_talk:Iadrian_yu/Archive_April,2010#March_2010

your first indef ban You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts to feign consensus at AFD

• User_talk:Iadrian_yu/Archive_May,2012#Sockpuppetry_case

• 2) This time? Maybe.... I don't know yet...

But what I know: You have vandalized multiple articles which concern Hungarian persons/nobilities (your personal favorite is clearly John Hunyadi, last try is in this month February_2013) , or other Hungarian related facts (Iadrian_yu's "contributions"), which didn't fit your agenda, like this article about Hungarian people

• User_talk:Iadrian_yu/Archive_May,2010#3RR_warning

I am not saying you're totally unconstructive, but you really do a lot of trouble for us, and you're putting an awful lot of effort into enforcing your POV over Hungarian-related articles (one way or an other).

• 3) It's not your job to decide what is special, those pictures there are, because they represent part of the Hungarian culture which is spirit of the people.

• You also didn't remove other pictures which show other buildings still standing in Hungarian land. And you deleted those which are standing where Hungarians live, even though all of them were part of the Hungarian state before 1920.

• 4) Redundant statement, but: Yes you started one, then a "mysterious stranger" came and acted just as you wrote in the Talk section.
• 5) The two bigger churches which I can recognize: Yes

St. Elisabeth Cathedral's construction began under the rule of king Louis I the Great 1378 and the church was named after St. Elizabeth of Hungary

St. Michael's Church's construction began under the rule of king Charles I of Hungary 1316

But in fact, Romanians belong to the Orthodox church, they haven't really built anything else.

• 6) Yes you failed to see that, Hungarians aren't ....Serbs, Poles, Romanians, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Germans, Italians, Slovenes, Austrians, Ukrainians, French people, Macedonians (ethnic group).. you name it...

Csendesmark (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Answers by Iadrian_yu(Adrian)

I will answer by your numbers.

• 1) Before doping ridiculous accusations on me please investigate a bit, because you are not credible in this way.
  • In March 2010 I was blocked for edit warring, yes I was a new user and I did`t know how to conduct myself. That was in 2010! My last block was in May 6, 2010! Three years ago therefore I don`t see this related except that you dig this up all this in bad faith since you clearly did`t read them, just dropped here.
    • About the sockpuppet , I was blocked by jpgordon::==( o ) 15:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC) for socket puppetry, but if you analyze it first you see it was a mistake, at the time there wasn`t even a sock case against me. Take a look at my block log AGAIN, 16:55, March 18, 2010 Scientizzle (talk | contribs) unblocked Iadrian yu (talk | contribs) (looks like a mixup...) - and if you take a look at the discussion [14] you will see everything. Several editors noticed that it was a mistake since they were looking for someone from Pakistan. Don`t know why did you bring this up when it was clearly a mistake?
    • About this [15], I don`t know why this user started this thread in HurricaneFan25 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC), but the case was accepted and I was cleared as a normal user. Now this is the second time you proceed with personal attacks based on nothing second time, please read WP:NPA and try not to attack me again personally and keep to the subject YOU opened here.

• 2) If you have a problem with Romanian users I am sorry, I can`t help you there but you should try to keep your personal stuff out of this.
  • You obviously choose not to see and present half-facts as a genuine data. My latest "vandalism" (another personal attack from your side?) was the removal of strange comment and I got a warning, but please read it well before making another unsourced accusation about me read it please.
  • My "agenda" is editing articles and correcting whenever I see something strange. It is always nice to see a warning from 2010 about me. WP:LETITGO ? That is so recent I don`t know what to say anymore.

• 3) It is our job to improve articles, and if you looked, you notice that ANY other article about ethnic groups don`t contain this kind of pictures. According to other examples on wikipedia, it is more than obvious that there is something wrong here. Please try to find the "Hungarian spirit" in the people, not on some random buildings that are nothing special to the Hungarians, just a random village, random place?
  • Yes, it is interesting how something was a part of the Hungarian state 100 years ago.. Should we add on the Ottoman people (Turkish) all places under Otoman Empire? Or French Empire? Or maybe the Germany in the World War II, the territories they annexed? You name it.. I have left the building in Hungary because they are in Hungary, simple as that.

• 4) I don`t see how can this be redundant because it proves that those places are present at the article without any valid logic, except that they was a part of Hungary 100 years ago?

• 5) So then why add only those 2 Churches? Let`s add all 1 million of them that was constructed under Hungarian administration? I think Slovakians are Catholic too. Don`t forget that the Kingdom of Hungary was a multi-ethnic state, if it was constructed under Hungarian administration it is not necessarily Hungarian.

• 6) You fail to see that all this articles don`t have this kind of POV pictures, therefore why should this one do? Take for example only the first Nation, Serbs (have a lot of places inhabited by them in Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia and yet not a singe image of them here. They are a constituent nation in Bosnia, they have a Republika Srpska and no images of places outside Serbia? Don`t you see anything strange here in comparison to the Hungarian people article? They have a big part of national heritage, UNESCO sites on Kosovo and yet not a single picture on the article. I think that the Serbs are one of the people with the most bigger diaspora and not a singe image of random places of them on the article? Do you understand it now?

• 7) Please don`t modify my comments! [16], if you take a look at my talk page [17] that is forbidden - or as you called it Vandalism! You have deliberately deleted a part of my comment so I will just reinsert it.

Opening comments by uninvolved editor CoolKoon

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.

It's always kinda sad to see Hungarian and non-Hungarian editors arguing because it's rarely constructive. And when the topic involves stuff that generally concerns only Hungarians (like this time), then it turns even uglier.
Iadrian yu for one thing you definitely have a history of edit warring and a cooperation with sockpuppeteers, most notably Iaaasi. This is a fact and his repeated appearance in this discussion make you look even more suspicious. Also this has nothing to do with the fact that you're Romanian. The whole argument seems to be sparked due to the fact that you seem to have some sort of inexplicable anti-Hungarian agenda which (currently) manifests itself in attempting to limit Hungarian influence to Hungary and trying to assert that nothing notable has been built by Hungarians outside of current borders of Hungary. Unfortunately it isn't Romania alone where the official curriculum manifests itself this way: I happen to know for a fact that Slovakia and Serbia is the same (in Slovakia Hungarian history is usually -but not always- taught from the Hungarian translations of the Slovak schoolbooks, while in Serbia the only schoolbooks allowed are the translated versions of the official Serbian schoolbooks). So while your bias might be understandable, it's inexcusable in context of Wikipedia, independently of your nationality.
So what if the pictures are outside of Hungary? Most (if not all) of them are from areas which still ARE inhabited by Hungarians AND are part of Hungarian architecture (designed/built/ordered by Hungarians). Or do you assert that Catholic churches of Transylvania have ANY connection to Romanians? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Romanians Orthodox? As for St. Elisabeth's church in Kosice, I happen to know that Ferenc Rákóczi is buried there. Do you deny his connection to Hungarians perhaps? Also, if not for these pictures, what pictures do you recommend from Hungarian architecture/artifacts OUTSIDE of Hungary? Perhaps you could make some suggestions.
I kinda fail to see the point in naming all those different nations you did. What does that have to do with Hungarian cultural heritage? I have nothing against naming items of the cultural heritage of other nations either. Why should be Hungarians exceptions to this?
On the other hand it was kinda pointless of Norden1990 to bring up the debate about Hunyadi, because it doesn't have much to do with the article discussed at all. The mere mentioning of Hunyadi has caused the discussion to become completely off-topic.

Since Iadrian yu himself has admitted on starting the whole issue, let me ask him: why did you do it? What was your point?

-- CoolKoon (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Answer to CoolKoon

It is always nice to see other editors participating, but uninvolved I would`t say. I will skip the personal attacks you made on me and go right to the point.

• 1) I am not denying any connection to the Hungarian people of the buildings you enumerated now but you must take into consideration that this images can be used as POV pushing since we have random images from Romania and Slovakia only, but not from Serbia, Austria, Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Ukraine ? Example: Rimetea, majoritary Hungarian village in Transylvania, Romania - In Romania and a typical village. Should we add all other 100000 billion villages with Hungarian majority too? Why only this village? What is on this image so special to the Hungarian people?
• 2) The connection of the Church you talk about is obvious, but please consider all other wikipedia articles of Nations I enumerated here, many if all of them could have same pictures outside their country, but they don`t. If we have examples all over wikipedia of something, why should this article be any special? For example, the Serbs are in even better position to have this kind of images, but they don`t.. Take a look at Gračanica monastery, it was declared Monument of Culture of Exceptional Importance in 1990, and it is protected by Republic of Serbia, and on 13 July 2006 it was placed on UNESCO's World Heritage List - and yet no picture of it on the Serbs article?
• 3) I am really stunned that you don`t see the connection with the Nations`s articles I enumarated. I will try to explain it further. We have articles about nations all over wikipedia, all of them don`t contain this kind of problematic pictures like the Hungarian people do. Do you see the problem now?
• 4) For example a map of the region where Hungarian people are inhabited is OK by me (and nobody is denying the Hungarian presence in those places), but according to all the other examples on Wikipedia, adding random images of places outside that county is not. Example on the Hungarian people, the section "Folklore and Landscape" - landscape of Hungary? Or Hungarian people? I don`t see any Hungarian people on those images. This is also very misleading.
• 5) Of course I started the discussion, and if you check the talk page of the Hungarian people, you can see why. Adrian (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Answer to Iadrian yu

You wouldn't say that I'm uninvolved? I wasn't editing this article in the past 7 months for sure and neither did I participate in the edit war and heated debate unlike your "brother in faith" did (who's still blocked BTW), so this time I'm quite uninvolved.

1) Ok, the fact that the images are only from Slovakia and Romania CAN be considered POV and biased, so yes, I have nothing against inserting images from Serbia, Croatia, Austria and Ukraine as well. However that might make the gallery a bit overcrowded, don't you think? Also, it's not like these images itself are set in stone, you're always free to recommend some better ones. But then again what do you have against this particular village?

2) Why would the fact that other nations don't have such list of monuments (e.g. because they don't care for their cultural heritage too much) mean that/necessitate the Hungarians should follow the same path? Why should the Hungarian editors copy other nations' editors' attitude?

3) No, I don't and see my answer for 2)

4) Ok, then the term "landscape" should be removed/changed to something more appropriate. Not a big deal.

5) Yes, you stated some vague ars poetica on the beginning of the discussion at the article's talk page, but that doesn't explain that why now and why this article.

-- CoolKoon (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by

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.

Hungarian people 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.

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I've hesitated to say anything because I'm probably not going to moderate this dispute and wanted to leave it unopened for another volunteer to take it, but let me warn the editors in this discussion that we do not deal with conduct disputes here and will not tolerate personal attacks. Do not discuss or comment about one another or any other editor. If you have conduct, including puppetry, complaints, take them to sockpuppet investigations, WP:ANI, or WP:RFC/U but do not make or discuss them here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Jobs#Apple Computer.2C_Inc..27s_1997_Financial_Rescue

– New discussion.

Filed by Pdunbarny on 13:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Steve Jobs#Apple Computer.2C Inc..27s 1997 Financial Rescue (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pdunbarny (talk · contribs)
• BashBrannigan (talk · contribs)
• Dream Focus (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Wikipedia article's statement that "Jobs brought Apple from near bankruptcy to profitability by 1998." is based on the subject's, Steven Paul "Steve" Jobs, own claims ("We [Apple] were 90 days from going bankrupt.") and is not supported by facts other than those referencing the subject's claims thus making the subject the primary source of the statement posed as fact.

In addition the claim has a very high probability of being a false statement based on supporting evidence to the contrary provided in the talk pages linked, including the referenced article and linked US government documents filed by the company, Apple Computer, Inc.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Satisfactory evidence suggesting the article's statement ("Jobs brought Apple from near bankruptcy to profitability by 1998.") relies on the claim under dispute that was made by the subject ("We [Apple] were 90 days from going bankrupt.") that evidence shows it not likely correct, has been provided on the talk page.

Two other registered editors have provided opinions, one supporting the article's statement by questioning the evidence and the other believing there is adequate evidence provided.

How do you think we can help?

If the evidence provided is satisfactory, the statement under dispute should be either:

a) removed from the article, b) amended to make clear that it is a claim made by the subject, c) amended to make clear that it is a claim made by the subject without supporting evidence, or d) amended to make clear that it is a claim made by the subject without supporting evidence and is disputed.

Additional evidence can be provided to conclude the dispute.

Opening comments by BashBrannigan

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.

Opening comments by Dream Focus

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.

Talk:Steve Jobs#Apple Computer.2C_Inc..27s_1997_Financial_Rescue 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.

List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes

– New discussion.

Filed by Senor Taichi on 19:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Senor Taichi (talk · contribs)
• Ryulong (talk · contribs)
• favre1fan (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Article is an episode list of a live action TV show. Content dispute is on the summaries of the first four episodes

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I removed any futures summaries that may be considered "original research" telling Ryulong to act civilly

How do you think we can help?

Users should respect others and not dismiss every edit they don't agree with as "original research"

Opening comments by Ryulong

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.

Opening comments by favre1fan

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.

List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes 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.