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
Defense of Sihang Warehouse	Closed	Adachi1939 (t)	13 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 6 hours
New Mexico State University and University of New Mexico	Closed	Alamo NM (t)	3 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 hours
Genesis creation narrative	On hold	Violoncello10104 (t)	2 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 hours
Algeria	New	Lord Ruffy98 (t)	18 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	16 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	16 hours
Eudora (email client)	Closed	Hugh Turdmuncher (t)	12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 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 23:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Poison (Final Fight)

Summary of Dispute

There is an article about a video game character which currently contains hateful slurs against transgender people. There is a user "Kung Fu Man" who keeps aggressively RVing any attempts to remove the slurs or change the language of the article to contextualize them as slurs— and over the course of the edit war has even added in new ones.

The article is ‪Poison (Final Fight)‬. There is a talk page Talk:Poison (Final Fight). The edit war started at 03:13, 2 February 2014. At that point, the article contained links in two places to an article by the IGN video game blog in which Poison was referred to as a "trap". This is an extremely ugly slur, one often seen among anime fans-- it promotes an idea that transgender women are deceivers trying to "trap" straight men into sleeping with them. There are news stories where transgender women have been killed over this perception. Meanwhile, this particular link which used the slur is in my opinion extremely unencyclopediac; it's an old humorous "top ten" style article, and it is *not hosted on IGN anymore*, the cite on the wikipedia article goes to archive.org. In other words, IGN does not stand by the article. The quoted description of "trap" was included uncritically by WP and did not present it as offensive or negative; the prominent placement in the header made it appear Wikipedia was outright endorsing the language.

At the start, a couple of anon users simply removed the relevant text; this was reverted by Kung Fu Man and a couple of others. At this point I added an edit. My edit did not remove the section about the "traps" article, but did remove the duplicate mention in the header, and specifically contextualized the slur by referring to it as a slur and moving it into a new paragraph discussing transphobic responses to the character. I also added a talk page article about the page. (My edit received via the WP message box a "thanks" from Gabriel Yuji, one of the editors who had been reverting the anon ; this "thanks" implies to me this particular editor disagreed with the anons' lack of process rather than the substance of the edits.) My change-- all of it-- was also immediately reverted by "Kung Fu Man". Because Kung Fu Man's RV was unexplained, I once again replaced the page with my text and requested he participate in the talk page. (There is a talk page section where multiple people have been requesting the "trap" slur be removed as far back as 2011.)

At this point Kung Fu Man began participating in the talk page, and also made a number of changes to my edits restoring the transphobic slant. First off he removed all implication "Trap" is a slur. Second off he used my addition of a link to an article talking about transphobic language around the Poison character as an excuse to add the word "She-Male", another very ugly slur, with the excuse of quoting a Official Playstation Magazine article which was since retracted and apologized for by the Playstion Magazine staff. So now instead of one slur there are two. Both slurs are quotes of media entities that no longer stand by their use of such slurs; I see no reason why any of this is encyclopedic or relevant. My attempts to make the article text more trans-friendly by referring to the slurs as "a slur" rather than by name have been removed by Kung Fu Man. My attempts to add language clarifying the slurs are slurs, and clarify they are being included as a description of transphobia and not as an endorsement of the slurs by Wikipedia, have been removed by Kung Fu Man. I have ceased editing because my edits so far have been all (1) reverted by Kung Fu Man and (2) used as an excuse by Kung Fu Man to add additional transphobic language. I do not want to participate in an edit war but the people who wish to inline transphobic hate speech into this article apparently have no such compunctions.

This is not a wikipedia page about a politician or a civil rights figure. It is a page about a video game character. The page could be read by children, who might then assume that because Wikipedia comfortably uses "she-male" and "trap" that these are acceptable terms.

The current Wikipedia article text, which includes two vicious anti-transgender slurs, is non-neutral and hostile toward trans people. It would make any transgender person who reads the article feel uncomfortable and feel that Wikipedia is as an organization hostile toward them.

It is not possible to resolve this through editing process on the article itself because Kung Fu Man aggressively removes any text that is not his. Awk (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There is extensive discussion on the talk page. Awk (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

I would like to request that the slurs, which are gratuitous, purient and add nothing to the article, be removed, and that either the article be locked or Kung Fu Man otherwise be barred from editing the article. Awk (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The English Patient (film)

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by JzG on 11:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:The English Patient (film) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ring Cinema (talk · contribs)
• WordWrightUSA (talk · contribs)
• LimeyCinema1960 (talk · contribs)
• A1Houseboy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Extended fight spilling over to OTRS (ticket:2014012710001401 ). Please would someone drag the warring parties apart, archive some of the junk form the talk page and see iof anything productive can be made from this nonsense.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

n/a

How do you think we can help?

It's likely that WordWrightUSA is a tendentious editor and possibly sockpuppeteer, but it needs more detailed investigation.

Summary of dispute by Ring Cinema

This is about three words. The original sentence: "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a burn victim in the closing days of World War II Italy whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell the end to the dashing Hungarian archaeologist he had been." LimeyCinema1960 has offered the opinion that the last three words are superfluous. In fact, they are necessary to inform the reader that the burn victim and the Hungarian are the same person. Without them, they might refer to different people. I consulted with professional writers on this question and they agree with my assessment. This is a textbook example of the use of the past perfect continuous ("This form is sometimes used for actions in the past that were interrupted by some event.")

Summary of dispute by WordWrightUSA

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Revision to my original summary: Three words is not the question at hand. Expression is. An example of a possible change to the "draft" was suggested to which the response was that it was recognized that the three words were necessary. Never was there any indication that the new phrasing was acceptable although it basically covered all points in question with a proposal that flowed much better than ending with a statement of fact that if included in the flow earlier does not require the reader to have to reference back to the other parts of the sentence. Also, Wiki includes language in the appropriate article that there are a multitude of ways by which to express and that even when conventional correct rules are followed that it does not necessarily bring forth a sentence that suits the best form of expression and connotation. I should have copied it but there was an example of when following the conventional correct rules Winston Churchhill brought forth a sentence that does not flow well. I reiterate my earlier statement that, is Wiki obligated to a "draft" expression? I believe not. A substitute was offered during the discussion and disregarded and in fact there have been additional suggestions that, again, offer the same intend as that under question but in a much better flow. Is it necessary for a article draft sentence be imposed on those that think otherwise and that is in line with the Wiki ideal of community contribution? Recalcitrant comes to mind.WordWrightUSA (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting question at hand. Three words at the end of a sentence: "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a burn victim in the closing days of World War II Italy whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell the end to the dashing Hungarian archaeologist he had been." Are they necessary? Let me ask, is Wikipedia obligated to this sentence? No, if this is a community of contributors. The idea of different wording sequence has been suggested to give encouragement for mental agility but it seems the idea that we are stuck with this sentence permiated the discussion. That there is no other way that the ideas in question cannot be expressed except with "he had been." May I suggest: ""The film's invocation of fate, romance and tragedy unfolds through the story of a once dashing, now burned, Hungarian archaeologist in the closing days of World War II Italy whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spells their end." JUSTIFICATION: He eventually dies through euthanasia and she, her body vaporized while he flying her body for internment. Her body no longer exists and his life no longer exists. What more can there be to and end? No professional writers are needed to determine suitability. Again, is Wikipedia obligated to the previous expression? I would venture that the response will be no because there are too many discriptives either preceding or following the subject, or some such reason. Again, is Wikipedia obligated to the sentence and the three words in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordWrightUSA (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by LimeyCinema1960

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

If by indications of changes to both the proposed "draft" in question, and the subsequent offering mentioned in the talk page after the dispute was lodged, the point of this action would appear to be obsolete: the disputee has made changes to the proposed text which seems to have had previous acceptance to others. If it is the wish of the disputee to continue then let my previous statement stand.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of discussion exchange: Being an anthropologist, I am concerned about how people in publications express themselves so that what is implied is as neutral as is possible without offense.

In the article's plot the word FINDS was use to describe Almasys' role with seeing the Cave of Swimmerts, the location of which he was told by the area natives in their own particular way, that the land near it was like the back of a woman. Almasy tells this to us.

RING says that FINDS does not imply discover. That it is being used in the manner as if someone gives directions to a restaurant and you go there.

I(LimeyCinema1960) suggest LOCATE, since Almasy in order for others to verify his work would have to give indicate where they could be found such as with longitude and latitude. instead of relying on what description he was given which to the natives was perfectly suitable but for people not from that area it would not.

RING responded: "Absolutely not. Mapping is a Western cultural imposition on places they are ignorant of [RING did not specify the meaning for "of."]. Exploring is a euphemism for genocide since Columbus, as I'm sure you're aware. All we can accurately say is that Almasy sees the cave. I'm sure you understand how repugnant it is for you to pretend that only a Westerner can map or explore an ancient site."

I was FLOORED. As a trained anthropologist, those are some strong and prejudicial statements. I did not know how to respond to such accusations.

SharpQuillPen, responded: "Exploring is not a euphemism for genocide since Christopher Columbus because not all anthropologists, archaeologist, ethnologists and all the other appropriate cultural and animal scientists have developed the same reactions with natives. Some have developed and maintained very clear and strong relations that have helped build knowledge with these people for many years. If you wish to use the word repugnant then be it for the description of your own actions that bring disrepute. I would never use "sure" in place of "certain" because one has a colloquialism that best not be used in writing. And I would never, if your statement were true, use "pretend" to convey the idea of imply which is a form of pretending but not like fairy tales and such. What a disappointment and embarrassment on your part. What is your next move? Plead confusion, ignorance or transfiguration?

I (LimeyCinema1960) said:. Mapping and exploring has never been a solely reserved prerogative western cultural trait otherwise there would be countless studies made of ancient maps and ancient compilations made over time memorial since it would all be in some European language, but it is not. Instead, there are countless non-European language maps and compilations of information. Do you disagree with that in some manner? I would not want to portray words on your behalf as has been done for me.

Now by the time of Almasy the use of longitude and latitude was in wide use all over the world. Maybe not by every single person but certainly by those that sought to more definitively distinguish one location over another. Amelia Earhart seemed to have found longitude and latitude helpful although we do not know of her absolute location following disappearance. For some reason I do not get from you the idea of respecting consensus. Forgive me for saying it but for me it is a true and accurate statement. Does that sound familiar? I seriously do not accept that non-Europeans would consider it an affront to their culture to use longitude and latitude as a means of measuring and mapping in order to better predict location.

SharpQuillPen, said: "See and explores" is a good choice to identify just what role Almasy had in the Cave issue. It was the natives that told him about it although they did use their relevant descriptive term of the back of a woman rather than "10 degrees North by Noirthwest".

But the biggest reason why I consider the word FIND intends discovery and RING's Presumptive remarks about western culture and Columbus' genocidal exploration............When your professor was taught by some who was taught by Franz Boaz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Boaz

'Physical anthropology'

Boas's work in physical anthropology brought together........ These findings were radical at the time and continue to be debated. In 2002,........ They argued that their results contradicted Boas's original findings and........ New York had confirmed his findings—including the study by Walter Dornfeldt...... Encouraged by this drive to self-criticism, as well as the Boasian commitment to learn from one's informants and to let the findings of one all from a Wiki article!

Summary of dispute by A1Houseboy

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The dispute is opened on three words and one expression. Did any one block the meaning of those three words from being used to clarify the understanding that the "burned man" and the "dashing archaeologist" were the same.

The answer is no by the potential solutions to be found stated in the Discussion section.

Talk:The English Patient (film) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Coordinator's note: I am not opening this for discussion at this time, but wish to make some comments and requests for clarification. WordWrightUSA left what appeared to be a response to the DRN listing notice on his talk page. I've left a note there saying that he must respond here if he wishes to participate in this discussion. @LimeyCinema1960: Does "Need more be said?" mean you do not wish to participate further here? (If so, that's okay: participation in mediated content dispute resolution is always voluntary.) If you do wish to continue to participate, however, your opening statement, above, goes more to conduct than it does to content and we do not discuss or resolve conduct matters at this noticeboard. Please revise it to focus only on content matters, preferably on one or two specific edits or desired edits rather than on general issues. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC) (DRN coordinator)

After reading the proposed dispute I do have to add that literature has many ways of being expressed and that instead of holding fast to one proposal why not look within oneself for others? This was not done. Never did it seem that to these professional writers was the question posed is there any other way of saying it? But we are left with "my assessment." The discussions on the talk page seemed to be presented in such personalized manners that just disregarded the objective that when something was first presented, then critiqued that the critique held no value and that there was no other way of saying something. And that no only was the critique valueless but that "professional writers" supported the unchangeable expression. That is not community involved contributions. That is a ping pong match and all you get is someone who is a winner and the other, loser.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Those comments should have appeared with the others instead of here. Sorry. These computer screens can open up in the most bizarre places.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@LimeyCinema1960: I'm afraid that I don't understand what you mean by, "If my participation rests on "Need more be said?" then read it as if they never appeared!" Do you mean that we should regard this as if you never appeared here? Or do you mean that we should regard the words "Need more be said?" as having never appeared here? Also, as I noted above, if you do wish to continue to participate, however, your opening statement, above, goes more to conduct than it does to content and we do not discuss or resolve conduct matters at this noticeboard. Please revise your opening statement to focus only on content matters, preferably on one or two specific edits or desired edits rather than on general issues. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, the problem with the sentence in question is complicated by the fact that it is a run on sentence. Could we start by agreeing that it should be broken into two sentences (I'm using the version of the sentence which is currently in the article, rather than that set out by Ring Cinema, above):

"The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy, unfolds through the story of a burn victim in World War II Italy. A once dashing archaeologist, his sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell his end."

How about that? If we can agree on that much as a framework, we can then talk about any desired additional changes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Basically a version of the prosed sentence had already been in use during the dispute process and the dispute has even made changes to it so all that really needs to be done is making the proposed two sentence solution. I hope it works out. There are many other things that with a transcript of the film language points out statements that are not supported by the script.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Ring Cinema characterizes the identification of the improvement as a "silly mistake."WordWrightUSA (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The only difference seems to be: "Italy. A" It gives me the visual of that portion of Michelangelo's work on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel ceiling: "The Creation of Adam." Just that we bit separation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordWrightUSA (talk • contribs) 19:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to say that Ring continues to go edit crazy on the page and that when the history of "contributions" were reviewed that they seem to be solely to the plot and no other parts of the article or any original research to a recent article. That some portions of the plot taken on face value were left to their own devices and remained onl, through her own insistence of someone providing absolute film evidence as so, a copy of the film dialogue transcript was found and several points that if Ring had research capabilities as asserted by her assertion of composition they certainly did not show in the plot development process. I see that Ring being the disputee who lodge this action seems to act as if it does not exist with no response. Talk about stonewalling! Ring has lodged several 3 revert threats at people but evidently has ceased to follow through as it was found out that Ring's own actions will also be part of the review. I said that if Ring did not play mother at tea so much that there would not be so many reverts and changes attributed to her thus causing others that found the expression acceptable having to change so much. I suspect that Ring has not had the best of time controlling the group since we now have the film dialogue transcript. It is so convenient to locate those portions of the film that concern a particular issue thus leaving out speculation. Although it was Ring's assertion of speculation that caused the disovcery of the transcriopt because Ring based an initial assertion on a storyline script. Through due dilligence, it would have been found that the copy did not reflect large portions of the film dialogue therefore was not definitive. Also, looking at the end would have shown that the movie finished with katherine in the Cave, an obvious overlook. So, it can, with a less than desireable suggestion so far, be suspected that Ring is evading comment because notices are sent to those involved in this resolution actitivy. I just attempted to remove a cliche from the plot that I believe was proposed by Ring and it seems to contually be reverted yet i serious think that if someone else had proposed it that Ring's mastery of composition would have drawn notice of the change because of being a cliche. Sounds liker someone who will use what is convenient to put forth their views without regard to consistency.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion response per Dispute mediation:

Proposed suggestions:

LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC:

"The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a burned man in the closing days of World War II Italy who, as a dashing Hungarian archaeologist, sacrificed to save his love and instead spells their end."

WordWrightUSA (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC):

"The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a, once dashing, now burned Hungarian archaeologist in the closing days of World War II Italy whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spells their end."

"The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a once dashing now burned Hungarian archaeologist in the closing days of World War II Italy whose sacrifices spell their end to save the woman he loves."

A1Houseboy (talk • contribs) 01:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC):

"The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a once dashing now burned Hungarian archaeologist in the closing days of war in Italy whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell their end."

Betty Logan (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC), seem to recognized that if there were construction problems then they should be fixedcommented that it needed to be explicit:

"Comment I think it needs to be explicit that the burn victim and the "Hungarian archaeologist" are one and the same. If editors are dissatisified [sic] with Ring's version then maybe they should attempt integrating the information in another way, because if you haven't seen the film the current version is potentially confusing."

Why not fixed that which has been proposed. And, what better to make it explicit than with its own sentence, unless without some expression such as those suggested could.

Ring Cinema (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC) sought: "professional writers. They laughed at your mistake. I guess when it comes to Wikipedia, you are the problem. Good luck with that."

WordWrightUSA (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC) advised: "not all "professional writers" get the same rewards."

That would appear correct as not all people who characterize their activities with writing as their form of income receive the same monetary rewards and acculades. Even, Winston Churchill found it financially beneficial to do so. For it's hilarity, the following has helped rejuvenate many a tour crowd at Churchill-related sites and his view on conventional rules (usually recited without the vulgarity):

“This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.” (http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/07/04/churchill-preposition/; also included in the Oxford Companion to the English Language (no edition cited).

So, writing is a skill that obviously best works when it conveys the idea in a simple manner instead of creating the need for additional expressions or clarification in the same statement. Sentences can be conveyed when they modify that which comes at the beginning but the clarification at the end.

But, it seems that the numerous suggestions were insufficient to convince although they all contained the idea of those three words in a different location. WordWrightUSA points this out: "The obvious can be so in plain sight. (talk • contribs) 03:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Instead, Ring Cinema concentrates on the words rather than the idea surviving:

"Limey made an obvious mistake and he hasn't figured out how to correct himself. That's his problem. Why don't you try to help the poor fellow? He really needs it." Ring Cinema--(talk) 03:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"I notice you're not interested in the substance here. Your personal attacks are out of order." --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"It's funny that you can't see your mistake since you got it right in your alternate draft. Take another look at my edit there and you might figure it out. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Then of course with this dispute there was a preliminary recommendation that seemed acceptable but for a few changes:

TransporterMan (TALK) 15:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC):

"As I see it, the problem with the sentence in question is complicated by the fact that it is a run on sentence. Could we start by agreeing that it should be broken into two sentences (I'm using the version of the sentence which is currently in the article, rather than that set out by Ring Cinema":

"The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy, unfolds through the story of a burn victim in World War II Italy. A once dashing archaeologist, his sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell his end."

And at last sight it was:

"The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a burn victim in World War II Italy. Once, a dashing archaeologist, his sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell his end."

That seems simple enough to show that there is consensus since only one party has continually reverted it into one sentence.

So if it was the intention of the party to have this mediated then it appears that has been achieved and should with good faith be accepted as part of the Wikipedia spirit of community contributors.

Randolph Mantooth

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Cricket02 on 03:30, 30 January 2014 (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 Randolph Mantooth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Cricket02 (talk · contribs) NDakotaCelt (talk · contribs) Parabluemedic (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dispute over year of birth. Discussion and consensus on talk page with verifiable reliable source for year of birth 1945. However, another user, Parabluemedic, insists on changing the year of birth to 1950, without ever citing a source at all, or even discussing reasoning in the relative discussion on the talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on talk page with requests for comments/objections. How do you think we can help? Request User Parabluemedic to discuss the issue and provide a source instead of only leaving edit summaries like "DOB as cited by the actor himself". Summary of dispute by NDakotaCelt I was looking at the page and noticed it had updated with the wrong date. I corrected the date on 17 Jan 2014 in addition to adding recent information on the Pioneers of Paramedics. I presented my reasons for the 1945 date in the Talk section as requested. I presented additional sources and reasoning for the date. An earlier editor, Cricket asked for clarification and I provided that. I provided solid sources from the California birth index and marriage index housed on the FamilySearch (LDS) site. Those records are directly filmed and/or indexed from vital records in California. I supported the information with high school yearbooks, Santa Barbara Community College listing, AADA alumni list,AADA requirements, Route51 website bio sketch, and several articles relating to him signing a contract with Universal in a magazine layout published in 1970. I also pointed out the issues with a database called US Public Records because you cannot directly go back and review their sources. Several genealogical sites even caution users about using US Public Records due to its accuracy issues. It is a known by some fans that Randy does play with his age. A lot of individuals do, its human nature. Cricket and I had several discussions and we asked questions of each others findings, thoughtfully. The invitation for others to add to the discussion was open to them, including Parabluemedic. I have changed it back to support the information that supported the consensus. Summary of dispute by Parabluemedic Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Randolph Mantooth discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Coordinator's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I'm a regular volunteer here (and the current coordinator), I'm not opening this for discussion or "taking" it at this time, but I want to offer some observations. First, it appears to me that Parabluemedic has begun to engage discussion on his and others talk pages. It seems to me that much of the problem here might be avoided if the other editors in this dispute — and this is not a veiled criticism, merely a recommendation — would take the time to carefully and completely explain to him why his privately-offered sources are not sufficient and also the fact that Wikipedia policy requires that every fact here have an inline reference to a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, and the additional fact that that's particularly true for living persons. If he continues to engage, it might be best if this request were to be withdrawn and for discussion to continue at the article talk page. Second, I'd also like to observe, perhaps apropos of nothing, that analyzing and weighing multiple sources, even if they are all reliable sources, and coming up with a single age for a person may run afoul of the no original research policy or the synthesis part of that policy. If reliable sources disagree with one another, the Wikipedia standard is to include all reliable positions. Third, it must be noted that public records may not be used as sources about living persons, including use for the purpose of established age or date of birth. The BLPPRIMARY policy says: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. (Emphasis added and rearranged.) "Do not use" is pretty absolute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your time, your advice on policy is appreciated. We will continue discussion on article talk page. Please withdraw. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2014 (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.

Puerto Rico

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

Filed by Ahnoneemoos on 15:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ahnoneemoos (talk · contribs)
• TheVirginiaHistorian (talk · contribs)
• Mercy11 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We are concerned over wether we should call Puerto Rico an "incorporated" territory according to several opinions and resolutions emitted by lower federal courts.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have a had a friendly and amicable discussion but we have been unable to reach consensus.

How do you think we can help?

Listen to both sides of the argument and determine the best course of action.

Summary of dispute by TheVirginiaHistorian

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Presently Puerto Rico’s Infobox reads its government is “Commonwealth / Organized Unincorporated Territory” Like-minded editors seek to improve an article based on reliable sources in the face of opposition without sources. Anon.IP.231 suggested discussion based on the District Court ruling observes Congress “incorporated” Puerto Rico, Ahnoneemoos brought up statutes, TVH noted legal scholarship, p.1175 using “incorporated” and common usage in a Homeland department publication for the general reader. No sources say, "in the modern era, Puerto Rico is unincorporated by citizenship and its constitution." Sources do say Puerto Rico is "incorporated" in the modern era, and that it is included in the U.S., listed along with 50 states and DC.

That is not interpretation of primary documents in original research; that is not a conclusion by synthesis, "incorporation" is used in reliable source direct quotations both by a sitting federal district judge and by legal scholars. Editors object to the application of the wp:reliable source guidelines in this case and expressing a division among sources in the article narrative. Having lost at DRN "Defining the U.S.A." - archive 65 for lack of sources, TFD and Older≠Wiser show up here a year later -- without participating on the article Talk page -- without sources. Mercy11 provides a 1903 primary source Downes which says PR is unincorporated for the Revenue Clause. But there is no scholarly support for excluding PR as "incorporated", as modern jurisprudence understands that term of art.

The Infobox should remain unchanged as "Commonwealth/unincorporated organized" as sourced. Nevertheless, --- the narrative at Puerto Rico introduction should report that Puerto Rico is politically incorporated in the modern era, as sourced, and it is still "unincorporated" for the Revenue Clause as it was one-hundred years ago…as sourced. The goal is improving WP by addition of sourced material. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mercy11

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Here's what sources "in the modern era" [1] say about the political status of Puerto Rico:

1. The official site of the US Government: "Puerto Rico is a self-governing, unincorporated territory of the United States" [2].
2. The CIA World Fact Book (under "Government"): "an unincorporated, organized territory of the US" [3]
3. SCOTUS: Puerto Rico is "a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States." (Downes v. Bidwell; Balzac v. Porto Rico)

The political status of a people is not established by the opinions of writers and authors of academic journals. It is established by the declarations of sovereign political authorities. (e.g., Alaska was declared an incorporated territory of the US by the SCOTUS in Rasmussen v. United States.) As such, the opinions from Cornell and BC, etc., are irrelevant.

The notion that "Puerto Rico is politically incorporated in the United States as a territory, but it is held as unincorporated by the Supreme Court for purposes of a discriminatory tax regime" [4] is, likewise, WP:OR. It is not uncommon for US Congress to establish different tax regimes to its territories. This was the case with Alaska ([5]) and has in fact been the case with Puerto Rico since it became a Commonwealth in 1948 ([6]). But to stretch that to conclude that Puerto Rico is incorporated for everything except taxation falls under WP:SYN.

Lastly, the decision by federal Judge Gelpi is irrelevant: The SCOTUS has established that the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico "is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article 4, §3 of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court."([7]) As such, any opinion from Judge Gelpi relative to judicial constitutional matters is not representative of even the US federal judicial system at all. Of course, the Gelpi opinion bears some significance, but it is not of enough weight to warrant inclusion in the Puerto Rico article and, because of its specific legal and constitutional nature, is more appropriate as an explanatory note in the Political status of Puerto Rico article. This, was done and is found THERE. As such, no additional changes to either article are needed.

{Side note: I note that this matter was originally raised HERE by anonymous IP 64.237.234.231 (what editor TheVirginiaHistorian has been calling "IP 231"). And HERE is the (dubious?) editing history of that IP address. Interestingly, just as the anonymous IP discontinued his participation in this matter, TheVirginiaHistorian appeared to take over. In particular, the anon IP did not reappear concurrently (intertwined) with TheVirginiaHistorian. I would like to know if the two are both the same editor.} Mercy11 (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

I do agree to write something similar to, "several judges and scholars have concluded that..." but categorically oppose to a statement that establishes that Puerto Rico is an incorporated territory. This is based on the ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Insular Cases and the Jones Act enacted by the 64th Congress in 1917 which declared that, "Puerto Rico is an “organized but unincorporated territory”" (source: [8]). —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - The United States established a military government in 1898 which acted as both head of the army of occupation and administrator of civil affairs. Almost immediately, the United States began the "Americanization" process of Puerto Rico. The U.S. occupation brought about a total change in Puerto Rico's economy and polity and did not apply democratic principles in their colony. Puerto Rico was and still is classified as an "unincorporated territory" which means that the protections of the United States Constitution — including the right of citizenship — does not automatically apply, because the island belongs to the U.S., but is not part of the U.S. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Mercy11, Ahnoneemoos and Tony the Marine have explained well why Puerto Rico remains unincorporated. While sovereignty over Puerto Rico was transferred to the U.S. from the Spanish Empire, the U.S. Congress has never incorporated the territory into the U.S. As a result, Puerto Rico differs from incorporated territories. The constitution does not apply, although Congress may and has extended most of the protections of the constitution, the U.S. Congress has the power to grant independence without a constitutional amendment, and it is possible to be a citizen of Puerto Rico without being a U.S. citizen. Internationally, its status as a territory separate from but subject to the U.S. allows it to enjoy a limited international personality. TFD (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Reply No scholarly sources call Puerto Rico “unincorporated” in all things in the modern era, not from Mercy, Tony or TFD. Mercy11 would have us make our own interpretations of Downes v. Bidwell and Balzac v. Porto Rico. But no scholar supports extending their limited findings to citizenship or PR Constitution in the modern era. A century ago, Downs said, Porto Rico is “not a part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution”; in Balzac, SCOTUS upheld Puerto Rico’s jury trial in cases of felony, but not in misdemeanor name-calling.

While it is a territory, and until statehood, Puerto Rico will have only the constitutional provisions Congress assigns it, --- just as the noncontinguous “incorporated” territories of Alaska and Hawaii before it, --- as Mercy, Tony and TFD observe. It also happens that Congress has over time, politically “incorporated” Puerto Rico as a sitting federal district judge and two legal scholars have published in reliable sources. PR will not have all the privileges of a state until statehood.

I have already conceded that the Infobox adequately expresses Puerto Rico’s status as a Commonwealth and as an unincorporated organized territory, that need not be changed in my opinion. But the introduction narrative should reflect both the general “incorporation” attested to by scholarly sources, such as "several judges and scholars have concluded that..." from Ahnoneemoos --- and while admitting fundamental Constitutional provisions are guaranteed by federal courts, note the particulars of its “unincorporated” character relative to the revenue clause and jury trial as sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In Balzac, the Court determined that the 6th amendment of the U.S. constitution guaranteeing trial by jury does not apply, because Puerto Rico is not incorporated. However, in felony trials the right to a jury was established by statute. It may be this is a trivial matter. After all, there is no right to a jury trial in other common law countries except for indictable offences. But it is just one of the many differences between incorporated and unincorporated territories. TFD (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No jury trial for misdemeanor name-calling may be a differences between a state and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico. But no territory, -- incorporated or unincorporated for a limited purpose --, has ever had all privileges of a state until statehood. PR is like the cases of "incorporated" Alaska Terr. and Hawaii Terr. with a territorial representative in Congress. Failing to have all state privileges does not make a territory "unincorporated".

And as we have seen, several judges and scholars have concluded that over time, Congress has "incorporated" PR in its political character without jurisprudence. As we read in the much cited Downes case, "the power to establish territorial governments has been too long exercised by Congress and acquiesced in by this court to be deemed an unsettled question." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The full constitution has always applied to all incorporated territories. While an incorporated territorial government (or the DC district) has never had the same privileges as a state, the people residing there have all the rights protected by the constitution as people living in states, including the right to jury trials. TFD (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Source v. no source: Hawaii v. Mankichi, “Congress did not intend to impose upon the islands every clause of the Constitution ...[in the case of a murder trial without a unanimous jury]… "it may have been for a century -- the courts in Hawaii, although acting under and by the authority of the United States, might have tried persons there for capital or infamous crimes in a mode confessedly contrary to the Constitution of the United States." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hawaii became a territory of the U.S. in 1898 and was incorporated by Congress 14 June 1900. The Supreme Court determined that before Hawaii was incorporated, the U.S. constitution (specifically the 5th and 6th amendments) did not apply. Since Mankichi was convicted before Hawaii was an incorporated territory, he could not claim that because he had not been indicted by a grand jury his conviction was void. As a general rule, you should cite secondary sources, which are helpful in avoiding the type of mistake you just made. TFD (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Lack of all constitutional provisions does not exclude a territory from becoming "incorporated" by Congress. That "incorporated" element of PR status should be added to the article introduction, without dismissing a reference to its "unincorporation" for the revenue clause, and jury trial for misdemeanors, as sourced. Territories are subject to Congress's plenary power under the Territory Clause until statehood; territories are not states.

The secondary sources under discussion are a) Lawson and Sloane, b) Gelpi, and c) the Homeland department summary of U.S. law for the general reader. It is not clear why there seems some resistance on your part, when there is no support from a reliable scholarly source anywhere in your discussion. And were there to be, the qualifier supplied by Ahnoneemoos, "several judges and scholars have concluded that..." PR is "incorporated", covers that eventuality. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Remarkable that TheVirginiaHistorian continues his campaign for presenting synthesis and original research as fact. Please refer the voluminous earlier discussions at Talk:United States and Talk:Territories of the United States. There is no reliable source with the authority to declare PR incorporated that say PR is incorporated. U.S. government sources plainly and without qualification state it is unincorporated. The most that can be said is that some scholars and judges question this official status. older ≠ wiser 12:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that is almost the point made by Ahnoneemoos, "several judges and scholars have concluded that PR is 'incorporated'." --- as sourced --- And that PR is still 'unincorporated' for the revenue clause as sourced should not be left out. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The opinions of several scholars and judges are only that, opinions. The only official status of PR is at present unincorporated. older ≠ wiser 13:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Once Congress incorporates a territory into the United States, the Constitution (which is the supreme law governing the U.S.) extends there. Hence once Hawaii was incorporated, the 5th and 6th amendments applied, as they do today. But when Hawaii was an unincorporated territory, it did not apply. TFD (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin (2)

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Ladislav Mecir on 11:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Bitcoin scheme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) Bosmon (talk · contribs) Aoidh (talk · contribs) Silbtsc (talk · contribs) Dispute overview [User: Ladislav Mecir]] marked the "Some accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme." using the template, while User: Bosmon removed the template pointing at the existence of reliable sources. I acknowledge that there are sources for the information, however, I consider the act of performing a Ponzi scheme a serious crime. As such, it should be better referenced than just pointing at articles not specifying any accuser. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discuss the issue on the Talk page and use the template in the main article. How do you think we can help? Give me (and potentially other editors) an advice whether I (we) should consider the sentence to be in accordance with Wikipedia policies in this specific case. Thanks in advance. Summary of dispute by Bosmon Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Aoidh Well, there's been no discussion on the talk page about this "some" wording so this seems a bit rushed. The consensus version (which was agreed upon as the result of a very lengthy discussion) did not use a vague "some" but noted "critics" and then went on to give an example so that it wasn't a vague thing. - Aoidh (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Silbtsc Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Bitcoin discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on 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.

Antichess

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Mann_jess. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Antichess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mann_jess (talk · contribs) Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dispute relating to a recent copyedit, including some content that was removed. Should we include links to flash games as ELs, and should we include example chess games, noted move by move, in the article body? Have you tried to resolve this previously? Not at DRN. Discussion has taken place in edit summaries and briefly on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Since it is an obscure article, there are only two participants in the dispute. I'm having difficulty participating with the other editor, and would like some outside involvement to make collaborating and reaching consensus easier. Because of the nature of the dispute, I believe DRN is more appropriate than 3O. Summary of dispute by Mann_jess Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I recently made this change, copyediting and reworking the article's existing content. My edit generated this discussion, concerning one sentence I had changed, which was my first interaction with ihardlythinkso. I tried working with him to bring the wording closer to our sources, but had considerable difficulty doing so. I eventually left the conversation when I felt it wasn't helping. Ihardlythinkso made a series of edits the next day, including this one, which restored 4 external links I had removed, with an edit summary "unexplained removal". I removed them again and explained my reason (we don't normally provide links to flash games in ELs), and asked for discussion if he disagreed. He reverted again with a rationale of BRD, and I opened a new section on talk to discuss it, here. My second comment is a rather frustrated one in response to his third revert, where he again just cited BRD, and accusing me of "bullying". That conversation hasn't gone anywhere that is helpful, and since it started, ihardlythinkso has undone more of my original edit. I'm having a hard time communicating to him in a way that is helpful, and I think we need the opinions of outside editors to make any headway. It appears to me that ihardlythinkso disputes my entire edit, but the three issues he has so far brought up are: Should these four flash games be linked as ELs. I don't believe so on account of WP:ELNO #8, which says we should not link to exclusively Java and flash content. I also don't believe it is encyclopedic content, and I believe it is contrary to the stated reason for ELs, which is to provide additional research and information about the topic. Should we include entire games, notated algebraically move by move, like this. I don't believe so. I don't believe it is helpful to our article, or easily usable by a casual reader. I also think it violates WP:GAMEGUIDE (WP:NOT). What should we do about wording choices, such as discussed here. Since it appears that the original sentence is unsourced, I don't believe further discussion on this issue will be helpful. I don't believe my edit changed the original meaning, except to make it shorter, easier to understand, and more likely to be sourceable. ("Most chess servers that offered it" is harder to source than "Many chess servers"). Any help calming things down and getting back to a collaborative atmosphere would be terrific. Thanks. Summary of dispute by Ihardlythinkso Everything is on Talk:Antichess, I'm not sure there is any utility in my repeating what's there, to this board. (If there is, let me know, I'll copy what's there, to here.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Except there is no discussion at Talk:Antichess about the forced win sequences of chess grandmaster David Bronstein referred to by Mann jess as "games" and GAMEGUIDE. His comments show that he does not understand what those sequences are, and their contribution to the article. (In chess variant Antichess, it follows from the rules, that several first moves by White cause immediate loss. The article alludes to the existence of the winning sequences by Black, but did not spell them out until User:Double sharp prepared and added the Bronstein sequences. The sequences gave more completeness to the section, similar to puzzle solutions, rather than leave the reader guessing or the task of working out the solutions him/herself. Those solution sequences came from a reliable source. Mann jess's deletion of them was unexplained content removal -- his editsum said simply "ce". I brought up objection with some deletions he made in his original edit on article Talk, however discussion never got around to them due to dispute over his changing meaning of existing content with his own WP:OR which he has mischaracterized above as "working with the text".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC) I really resent the false characterizations presented by User:Mann jess in his conduct summaries, which seem to want to paint me bad, him good. His statement regarding me a hard time communicating to him in a way that is helpful sidesteps his own aggressiveness to make unexplained changes, edit-warring before discussion, WP:IDHT behavior after methodic attempts to communicate plainly with him, and unnecessary instant insulting personal commentary from him claiming uncollaborativeness from the objecting party when receiving objecting arguments from another user. I did not sign up as WP volunteer to face this kind of hypocritical hostility and aggressiveness. I think he reacted defensively to the first Talk thread where I objected to his substituting WP:OR content for existing content, there was nothing personal from me and I'm not responsible for that. It seems his defensiveness rendered him unable to discuss objectively, and if he doesn't get his way the other editor isn't being "collaborative". That's a crock. Antichess discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on 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.

England

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 90.221.113.19 on 22:21, 31 January 2014 (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 England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Rob984 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The Royal Standard of England, otherwise known as the 'Three Lions' has been used extensively in English culture for centuries since it's adoption by Richard I on his ascension to the throne. This in turn comes from the Royal Emblems depicting lions from the Norman Dynasty. The Royal Banner does not represent any particular land or area, it does however represent the sovereignty of the Royal Family. To say that it has no informal use today is a very poor reflection of English culture, the most famous example of the three lions being utilised is on the crest of the English National Football Team, where the 'three lions' is used. A more official use of this is in the top-left and bottom-right quadrants of the current Royal Standard of the United Kingdom, and on other royal/governmental insignia and logo's. The user 'Rob984' has made several inappropriate edits to the England page, including removing the Royal Banner, removing the national anthem and removing several other important cultural images/entries. In similar style to the UK's 'unwritten' constitution, just because it is not official does not mean these things do not exist as important parts of England's heritage and history. In removing the Royal Standard in particular, which has existed as the symbol for England for well over 800 years, the user Rob984 stated he 'strongly suspect it has no official, or even informal use today' - again a very poor reflection on English culture. The Royal Standard can be seen in two quadrants of the current Royal Standard representing England, on the National Football Team emblem and on other governmental insignia. In addition he has removed 'Dieu et mon droit' as the national motto, a well known phrase again originating with Richard I. This user has pursued a very aggressive editing policy that has upset many, which can be observed on his talk page amongst others. In this instance he has deliberately undermined English history and heritage. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to reach the user several times. To my dismay he has ignored all messages, looking at previous discussions with other editors I can understand that I am not the only one. How do you think we can help? Rob984 has had several complaints made against him already, his intolerance to all opinions but his own and his lack of courtesy and aggressiveness had earned him a reputation long before I discovered him. I would like to recommend Rob984 be banned, and that all edits he has been allowed to publish on Wikipedia, particularly on the England page, be reversed to its original format and content - so that it may correctly portray England, its heritage and its long, prestigious history. Summary of dispute by Rob984 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. England discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on 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.

Phineas Gage

– New discussion.

Filed by ChrisGualtieri on 16:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Phineas Gage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs)
• EEng (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Before I arrived at the article, it was a complete and utter mess. [9] Notes that were longer then the actual body. More than 40 false references that do not exist. A vast array of useless wiki markup, notably 400+ SHY templates without 1 actual usage. It included editorializing and a personal appeal to readers in the text and external links. EEng has reverted sourced additions and is rejecting other sources.

Among those included were the Corsini Encyclopedia and a publication by Fleischmann and several textbooks including works at Berkeley. Macmillan's source has been described by Daniel Tranel, New England Journal of Medicine, as "[a] thinly disguised vendetta against other Gage experts and the frequent aspersions cast on their scholarship … [and] motives." and ( by another author) as "The author’s attack on a social constructionist view of history that allegedly disregards facts seem misplaced and irrelevant."

EEng has continued this non neutral POV and has repeatedly attacked other researchers and scholars, dismissing other publications despite containing sources and details that are absent. Conversely, the article fails to properly detail Gage's date of death, with a reputable doctor getting it incorrect by a year against two documents from an undertaker's record which both omitted his accurate age and spelled his name incorrectly. Omissions about the exhumation and behavior of Gage is another matter. All in all, numerous editors have tried to fix the baroque wording and prose, but with the COI and abrasive interactions of EEng the article is an extension of him and Professor Macmillan's work. EEng has used the Wikipedia article to advance their POV and has used it as a soapbox and to further their research.

As a result, the article has deep flaws in NPOV, OR and SELFCITE - made by the COI.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Established a COI at COIN - Three editors in agreement before discussion became a wall of text. EEng is a self-disclosed author of sources and works for Macmillan on the subject of Phineas Gage; the principal source represented in the article. This is a violation of the basic principal of COI. As such, EEng should not be editing the article directly.

Also, lengthy talk page discussions have continued over just about everything in the article.

How do you think we can help?

Assist in resolving the content dispute over sourcing and POV issues. Specifically, on the widely noted theories of Gage's behavior, death and injury as noted by many sources that fit EEng's COI and POV.

Summary of dispute by EEng

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Phineas Gage discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.