Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Skip to open disputes
skip to newest thread
(purge cache)

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?

Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

Become a volunteer

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:

Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

Open/close quick reference

To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Wolf	Closed	Nagging Prawn (t)	29 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	In Progress	Randomstaplers (t)	25 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours	Randomstaplers (t)	21 hours
Double-slit experiment	Closed	Johnjbarton (t)	9 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 9 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	Closed	Wolfdog (t)	7 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	New	PromQueenCarrie (t)	6 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours	Last1in (t)	13 hours
Genocides in history (before World War I)	New	Jonathan f1 (t)	1 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours	Cdjp1 (t)	14 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 14:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Example case

Spore (2008 video game) (Example case)

(Example post)

Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)

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

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Steven Zhang (talk · contribs), Example (talk · contribs)

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

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

What can we do to help resolve this issue?

Direct me to ways to resolve this dispute, or where I can get assistance in resolving the dispute. We need to come up with a compromise as how to move forward with the article. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....}

Discussion

Resolution

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

Zoellick bio

Robert Zoellick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Demiurge1000 reverted Currency1's edits. Mediator from Mediation Cabal agreed that independent reliable sources justified Currency1's edits. Demiurge disagreed with mediator. Mediator decided to stop serving as mediator for Mediation Cabal.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

Currency1 (talk · contribs)
Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs)

Currency1 notified Demiurge1000 of this dispute.

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

Yes.

N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Zoellick bio}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Discussion on Zoellick bio talk page; Mediation Cabal; pasted draft of this DRN submission on talk pages of Demiurge1000 and Oddbodz.

How do you think we can help?

Either determine that no independent reliable sources support Currency1's edits or revert Currency1's edits deleted by Demiurge1000.

Currency1 (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zoellick bio discussion

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

I presume this concerns Robert Zoellick. I went to the BLP noticeboard in a response to Currency 1's request for help, But I found that this editor had been attempting to t negative information about alleged failures in the general operation of the bank, not in the least limited to his period, on every page possible, in such a way that they reflected on him personally. To some extent some it possibly might be appropriate to mention, but not in the extravagant way that it was bering used,a gross violation of BLP, which applies on talk pages also. My statement on the talk p there summarizes my view of the matter. My resolution of it would be to ban currency 1 from any edits regarding him or the back. The editor admits in so many words on the BLPN page there "Robert Zoellick has indicted himself through..." This editors handling of th topic is a disgrace to Wikipedia, which should not be used in this fashion. That the ed. should have carried it hereafter being rejected there indicates a persistence in the use of synthesis, exaggeration, and out of context quotation for what they admit had become a personal quarrel. I have had some off wiki correspondence with the ed, which supports my view that there is no understanding whatsoever about WP not being used as a soapbox. I suppose if we reject her here, she will find yet another place for this. I conclude that I probably initially used my admin role in too restrained a fashion on this--instead of warning, I should have blocked. If any other admin wants to do so, I'll support it. It seems the only way of ending this dispute.

I try to avoid bringing up my political opinions here, but I have no love for any aspect of the world financial system, either in aggregate or in detail, and those who know me will know I am putting this as mildly as possible. But Wikipedia is not the place to bring it down, however much it may deserve it, and personal abuse is not the method. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These two proposed edits in Italic text hardly bring down the world financial system, and are not abusive, they simply state facts about Robert Zoellick's presidency at the World Bank. The Article is misleading without the added content. There are ten reliable sources that support the proposed additions:

On April 20, 2010 Robert Zoellick declared open access to the international statistics compiled by the World Bank. US Congress refused to approve a capital increase for the World Bank until Robert Zoellick cooperated with a GAO inquiry into transparency at the World Bank requested by Senators Richard Lugar, Patrick Leahy and Evan Bayh.

Even though [Hilary Clinton] previously had expressed the desire to hold no further political office (specifically ruling out another four years as U.S. Secretary of State in a second Obama term), she has been in formal discussions about taking up the post, according to three different anonymous sources. President Zoellick's successor has to be approved by the 187 country members of the World Bank since the 66 year Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US ended.Currency1 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the entry at the BLP noticeboard from July, I would say that User:Currency1 is on thin ice. If she again restores her proposed material to our article on Robert Zoellick she risks being blocked for violation of WP:BLP. That is, for inserting unsourced negative material. The only way she can make any headway at all (if she insists in working on this article, which may not be a good choice given her COI) is to make a case on the article's talk page which is so persuasive that other editors reach a consensus to support her view. If so, someone else could edit the article to add his material. It is conceivable that appropriate secondary sources on these questions about Zoellick's personal situation may exist, but Currency1 has so far not found any. There is more discussion at Talk:Robert Zoellick#Transparency at the World Bank. I agree with what DGG had to say there. He has read the sources but could not find support for the assertions that Currency1 wanted to add to the article. I suggest that people read Demiurge's comment also. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka religion statistics

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.

Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Appropriate sourcing of information.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

Distributor108 (talk · contribs)
Astronomyinertia (talk · contribs)

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

Yes

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

Resolving the dispute

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

The Talk page of the article in dispute.

How do you think we can help?

To define which source is more credible, the actually work i.e document/statistics or a published article from a 3rd party at a later date.

Distributor108 (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka religion statistics discussion

I suppose this "dispute" is about the religiosity of Sri Lanka. Distributor108 complains that the stats are outdated and University of Cambridge (The Cambridge Factfinder, 1993 edition), from which these stats are taken, does not have jurisdiction to make statistical estimates in sri lanka. He asks to change the statistics according to the 2001 Department of Census and Statistics, Sri Lanka estimate. [1]

My comment on Cambridge Factfinder data:

The data is cleary outdated. The source may have not made a statistical estimate, but reused a set of data that was already available at that time.

My comment on 2001 census data:

The report, itself says it was unable carry out the census on 7 of the 25 districts of Sri Lanka, namely Jaffna, Mannar, Vavuniya, Mullaitivu, Kilinochchi, Batticaloa and Trincomalee. And it, in nowhere states the percentages put forward by Distributor108. The department has clearly avoided using percentages because there is no point of giving the percentage followers of each religion in the country, if the census was not carried out on the entire island. And although the User says Department of Census only has the authority to carry out a census in the country, an incomplete census doesn't mean that people of these districts are non-existent.

Besides, there is a separate set of data in the Sri Lankan government official web site [2], which is very much closer to the Cambridge Factfinder data. But it doesn't say, for which year the data refres to. I think the Factfinder data should be retained until a complete census report is released by the Department of Census, which as it seems not long away because the Department has carried out a new census in July 2011. [3] Astronomyinertia (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I suppose this "dispute" is about the religiosity of Sri Lanka." - Yes

"complains that the stats are outdated and University of Cambridge (The Cambridge Factfinder, 1993 edition)" - main concern of this dispute is to use data from the direct source not a 3rd party extrapolation/ publication of the original source.

"University of Cambridge (The Cambridge Factfinder, 1993 edition), from which these stats are taken, does not have jurisdiction to make statistical estimates in sri lanka." - That is correct, which why these stats are an extrapolation of DoS statistics.

"He asks to change the statistics according to the 2001 Department of Census and Statistics, Sri Lanka estimate. [4]" - partly, If you say 2001 stats are incomplete due to the footnote saying the stats were not able to be completed in certain districts due to restriction imposed by MoD for security concerns, then the next appropriate comprise would be to use the latest census by DoS which you are happy with its integrity. I will approve to reach this compromise, however I would prefer to use the 2001 stats and also compromise to include the footnote if thats what it takes to attain your approval for this compromise.

" And it, in nowhere states the percentages put forward by Distributor108." - percentages were calculated based on stats provided, if you feel there is a mathematical error, I'll be happy to discuss this with you further.

"The department has clearly avoided using percentages because there is no point of giving the percentage followers of each religion in the country, if the census was not carried out on the entire island." - Please don't make claims on behalf of state institutions without cited authority/ credentials to do so. Thank you.

" which as it seems not long away because the Department has carried out a new census in July 2011." - Off topic, this dispute is happening now. this is not a viable solution to this dispute.

As i see it we have two compromises. (listed in order of my preference)

1. Use 2001 stats (i'm willing to allow for a footnote with the areas the stats were not covered for detailed, if that's what it takes to attain your approval).

Approved--Distributor108 (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Objection As I've stated above, an incomplete census doesn't mean that people in these districts are non-existent. Astronomyinertia (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weather they are non-existent, or the reasons for which the stats are incomplete is not up for you to decide, these stats were accepted as satisfactory census by DoS; i.e DoS has met its responsibility and guidelines to the parliament under the circumstances. If these stats are acceptable to you even with the footnote, I have provided the option below. Distributor108 (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Use 1981 stats. * Approved--Distributor108 (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no objection for using this data. But as I've stated below, the existence of a more recent GoSL estimate [5] makes it inappropriate to use a 3 decade old data. Astronomyinertia (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have given my approval for both these compromises, please select one of these which you are happy with and provide you approval so we can close this dispute. Distributor108 (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, I have no objection to the 1981 census data. But my question is, why should we use it when government has a more recent estimate? Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have two other options. Use the GoSL statistics [6] itself, or retain the Factfinder data. What's your opinion about the GoSL stats? Astronomyinertia (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise Denied The information cited from 'Information and Communication Technology Agency of Sri Lanka' neither has legal jurisdiction to maintain and hold responsibility for statistics. The only body that has this power is DoS, you may make an inquiry to ICTA about the source of their information. however DoS remains to be only body with legal jurisdiction to the data in question.Distributor108 (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you questioning the authority of the Government? www.gov.lk is the official web portal of the Government of Sri Lanka. A department is inferior to the government that gives it the authority. Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I'd like stay calm in this situation, I'd like say you are pushing my limits. The government website, which are you referring to is not the 'government' you are thinking about. That website is another body of the parliament/the government you are referring to. This agency is the ICTA as i said above, it is an execution body of passed/ratified legislation. The government portal has specific responsibility issued to it just like DoS or any other department, in fact the 'Government portal' is a subcontract of another agency, if you believe government portal is failing to meet its legal obligations, please feel free to file a compliant to the coordinating agency (This beyond the scope of this dispute however I extended the courtesy of attaining this information for you.) Please reconsider your oppositionDistributor108 (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC) [EDIT - Phone number and email address removed — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Let me clearly state my position. I have no idea, what so ever to push your limits or aggreviate the dispute. My one and only concern is the 2001 census. It is not an island-wide census and does not represent the whole picture of the country. I have no problem with the 1981 census, Factfinder statistics or the GoSL statistics. If you calculate the religiosity percentages of 1981 census, you will see that they are in par with the Factfinder and GoSL stats. I am supporting to add or retain any of these 3 sources. Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Requesting your Approval for use of "1981 DoS stats." - Please Publish the stats here first, and calculate the %, and I will evaluate my approval Distributor108 (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism : 69.30%, Hinduism : 15.48%, Islam : 7.56%, Roman Catholic and other Christian : 7.62%, Other 0.04%. Rather than saying the word approve, I'd say I would not oppose the selection. Astronomyinertia (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revised figures Hinduism : 14.86% Islam : 7.4% ; rest follows as you stated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which figures did you use? Using the 1981 figures, you should arrive at Hinduism : 15.48% (2297.8*100/14846.7) and Islam : 7.56% (1121.7*100/14846.7) Astronomyinertia (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there everyone. I have some points I'd like you to consider:

The Cambridge Factfinder, 1993 edition is written by David Crystal, a respected scholar, and published by Cambridge University Press, a respected academic publishing house. It passes all the criteria in the Wikipedia guideline on identifying reliable sources, and there is no reason that we can't use it.
The newer the statistics are, the better, although statistics that exclude large portions of a country are obviously problematic.
We don't just have to use one set of statistics in the article. If there is good reason for using both of the sets, then we can do that. How about saying something like "the 1993 survey reported in the Cambridge Factfinder says X; more recent government statistics from 2001 say Y, although they did not survey a significant part of the island."

Does this sound reasonable to you both? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your first two points. I haven't yet come across a single editor who rejects the factfinder statistics, except Distributor108. However, the 3rd point is not correct because there was no island-wide census in 1993, and the statistics seems to be based on the 1981 census, itself. The stats in the factfinder and the 1981 census are almost identical when the rounding errors are neglected. Astronomyinertia (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The newer the statistics are, the better, although statistics that exclude large portions of a country are obviously problematic.- I agree to this, and also agreed to write the footnote which was included in the original census document.

The Cambridge Factfinder, 1993 edition is written by David Crystal, a respected scholar, and published by Cambridge University Press, a respected academic publishing house. It passes all the criteria in the Wikipedia guideline on identifying reliable sources, and there is no reason that we can't use it. - Correct but this not original work.

We don't just have to use one set of statistics in the article. If there is good reason for using both of the sets, then we can do that. How about saying something like "the 1993 survey reported in the Cambridge Factfinder says X; more recent government statistics from 2001 say Y, although they did not survey a significant part of the island." Under which legislation allowed David to conduct this census, by your wording as i understand David himself conducted census? The 1993 publication is based on the 1981 DoS stats, that is why % are similar to once already use, however this not stats as of 1993 (even if you use these stats its incorrect to say the stats are from 1993, it should read 1993 publication based on 1981 census. the book was just published in 1993, the stats are from 1981. That why I said to use the 2001 stats with a footnote detailing the councils which the census was not conducted in, as it is most current, and accepted by the parliament. I again emphasis the use of option 1. Use 2001 stats (i'm willing to allow for a footnote with the areas the stats were not covered for detailed, if that's what it takes to attain your approval).* Approval pending Distributor108 (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so it looks like the Cambridge Factfinder has taken its data from the 1981 census. The Factfinder is a reputable reference work, so it should say where it got its data from. Do either of you have a copy of the book? We should really check the source of the information to find out whether it is the 1981 census or not. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, off course the data is from the census, DoS is the only body with jurisdiction to conduct a compulsory census. In the very unlikely David conducted a census, it would not be compulsory thus masses can choose decline to complete it. Therefore invalidating the integrity of any census conducted by any body outside of DoS. This is really a no brainer, use 2001 stats, and include the footnote. * Approval pending Distributor108 (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated over and over again, 2001 census is incomplete, and does not account for 7 of the 25 districts of the country. It cannot be used in Wikipedia because addition of those data is fundamentally misleading the readers. Incorporate the 1981 census data, which is the nearest complete census and please finish this discussion. Astronomyinertia (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

who are you to dismiss the 2001 census as incorrect?, the census was not able to be carried out in those districts due to various circumstances. 2001 is the latest data we have, there is no reason to use data which is 30 years old. until new data arrives, this is the latest we have. reconsider your opposition to option 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, its not place for discussion, leave that to legislative assemblies to decide if the stats are valid. Wikipedia will simply present this information, and include the footnote in the references that census was not completed distracts detailed in the footnote of the actual census. Distributor108 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. I'm out of this discussion. To the closing Admin: Based on the discussion happend on the Talk page of Sri Lanka article and here, 4 users who have involved in the case; myself, Adamrce, Obi2canibe and Mr. Stradivarius firmly believe that 2001 census should NOT be used as a source for the religiosity bar chart in Sri Lanka article as it [census] is not complete and hence does not give an island-wide view of the distribution of religions in Sri Lanka. All 4 editors have no problem with the existing Cambridge Factfinder (1993 edition) reference, and it seems that it is based on the 1981 census of Sri Lanka, due to the almost identical nature of statistics. On the other hand, Distributor108, briefly agreeing to use the 1981 census statistics and close this wayward discussion, has gone back in time and arguing for using the inconclusive 2001 census data. Thus it can be safely concluded that a consensus exists among the established editors, that the present data shall be retained. I see no point of carrying out this discussion anymore. Astronomyinertia (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation: Due to long-term edit warring at this article, the article is currently fully protected on an indefinite basis. That means that only administrators can edit the article. The Cambridge Factfinder 1993 statistics are currently in the article. This means that for them to be changed to the 2001 census data (and you can add my opposition to doing so, though I'm also open to Mr. Stradivarius's idea of using both if justified), then those in favor of the 2001 data must convince a sysop to change it. If Astronomyinertia's support/oppose analysis is correct, which it appears to be, then the chances of that happening seem very remote. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe that the 2001 data should be used as this was accepted statistics within DoS, as the latest stats available. And considering the significant change between the presently used 1981 stats, and 2001 stats, its fair to say that 30 year old stats are no longer valid. Astronomyinertia stated 4 editors believe in keeping the 1981 stats, the discussion above shows otherwise. I strongly believe Wikipedia should use the latest and accepted statistics by DoS, as i understand the 2001 census was not carried out in all districts, I strongly believe that weather this invalidates the statistics or not is NOT up-to editors on Wikipedia to decide. These are the current published and accepted statistics by DoS, and therefore should be used. That is all Distributor108 (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also considering the CIA worldfact book uses the 2001 stats with a footnote saying they are provisional is the best way to go in this situation. In what capacity do you completely reject the 2001 stats, and use a 1993 publication of 1981 stats, then claim it as a sourced from 1993. Please understand the difference between source and publication. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ce.html Distributor108 (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I've been watching the debate here and on the talk page. I haven't stepped in because it seems like the discussion has been fairly healthly and productive. I think it's just about hit the point where things are being repeated, suggesting to me that stepping in and trying to summarize views and suggest some options could be helpful. My work day went from decently open to dealing with another teams ~~stupidity~~ foolishness (if field X and Y must be kept in sync, then KEEP THEM IN SYNC! ARGH!), so it may be tonight (~7-8 hours from now) before I get a good chance to review things. Thanks for keeping this productive and respectful despite the different viewpoints. Ravensfire (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary and recommendation

I've tried to go through everything posted here and on the talk page, looking to summarize the dispute and see if I can help point everyone towards a solution that's agreeable. I'm not an admin, nor is this page binding arbitration. We're here to help the editors work towards resolving a dispute by giving outside advice and guidance.

The dispute is which set of figures to use as the breakdown of religions in Sri Lanka. The options I've seen proposed are the 1981 census data (also used by the 1993 Cambridge source), the 2001 census data and the Sri Lankan government website (source unknown). Besides Distributor108 and Astronomyinteria, several other editors offered opinions here and on the article talk page.

In general, all of the options would probably pass muster as reliable sources, but none of them are what I'd call perfect. The 1981 data is old. The 2001 data is incomplete. The government page is from an unknown source. There's a fairly strong concensus that the 2001 data is not a good source because it's significantly incomplete. There's a noticeable shift between 1981 and 2001 in several groups and it's easily possible that the makeup of those 7 regions could affect the shift. While the data is more current, I think it's extremely difficult to overlook how incomplete it is, especially if you're trying to use the data to present a general picture of an entire country. Surveys that attempt to do that are done as random surveys across multiple geographic boundaries to eliminate potential bias. An example from my area would be to survey American politics without getting anyone from the northeast area. You'd end up with a skewed picture.

I think nearly everyone accepts the 1993 Cambridge Factfinder (which uses the 1981 data) as a viable source. I think everyone also pointed out the age of the data. I agree, but it's also a complete data set. If the option is old but complete vs new but incomplete, I'm going to go with the old data and note the age of the data.

The other option that I've seen is to use the data from the Sri Lankan government page. I don't know the source of their data which is a concern. It could be new, could be old. Who knows. I think it's an option to use the Cambridge as the image source then in the text note that the government currently estimates the figures as A, B, C.

Distributor108 makes a valid point that the census data being used is old. The problem is that the more current data is flawed. Ultimately, the information on a Wikipedia article is based on a consensus of the editors using WP policies and guidelines to make decisions. The objects raised to the 2001 data set are firmly based in those policies and fall under editorial judgement. Astronomyinteria noted that a census was taken in July 2011, hopefully we'll get updated figures released from that census and we can get both accurate AND up-to-date figures.

My recommendation would be to continue to use the 1993 Cambridge Factfinder data as the source, but note that the data is from 1981. I would consider adding notes in the text of the article, using the figures from the [http://www.gov.lk/gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=61&lang=en official government website, saying the government currently estimates the percentages as A, B, C. Ravensfire (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Final recommendation

Thank you for your input Ravensfire, you made good summary with several good points. However I'd like to take the time to discuss my concerns. You keep saying the data is flawed, when its not flawed, the word should be incomplete or as CIA worldfactbook uses provisional. Their's nothing wrong with the actual underlying data. As I see from this discussion these are options that as been put forward.

Option 1: use 2001 DoS Data

Option 2: use 2001 DoS Data with saying data is provisional

Option 3: use David's 1993 publication of 1981 DoS datasourced from 1993 (currently in place)

Option 4: use 1981 DoS Data, with a footnote saying, Newer data shows significant change from stated figures however data maybe provisional.

My analysis on the above option

option 1: Is the latest data, but to leave without a note saying the data maybe provisional could be misleading

option 2: This is the newest most valid data we have that holds the broadest scope and integrity, however it not complete, thus a footnote to indicate the data maybe provisional is the best option as i see fit.

Option 3: This completely wrong and miss leading; and nobody here has a copy of this book. nor can it be easily referenced or accessed.

This is a 1993 publication of the religious distribution of 1981; Not 1993
The WP article currently states the Source is 1993; when it is agreed upon that this untrue.
The original data which is easy to access is available here from the source not publication; http://www.statistics.gov.lk/.
I explain below in " 6.2 My Suggested changes of data as follows in relation to Option 2 or 1" that this data is in fact flawed, It says Christianity was 8%; when Christianity wasn't a option in the census. Roman catholic and other Christianity was combined into one.

Option 4: This Okay, if 2001 data was not available however I see it as being better to use the 2001 data and include a footnote saying the data is provisional.

Conclusion

Ravensfire mentioned that the source from an unknown government site and provides a link to a government portal side. The government portal site is maintained by the coordinating agency ICTA, if you see the information on there is sourced incorrectly please contact them. I repeat again the government portal site is not a source but a publication. I have provided the link to the Department of Census and Statistics, where the information can be trusted to be genuine, its integrity guaranteed, takes full responsibility and liability for maintaining statistics. Full details of numbers and statistics are available there, and I repeat again this is the ONLY original source. we do not need to use publication when we have access to the original stats. Please refer to that site only, as any other source is a publication.

"Ultimately, the information on a Wikipedia article is based on a consensus of the editors using WP policies and guidelines to make decisions."

This is true, but when editors do not have the capacity to synthesize information correctly, and claims publications to be sources, do not have access to the source itself,; an admin should make the best judgement given the information above. Based on WP polices and guidelines, I think its clear that WP is an encyclopedia or publication, just like CIA worldfact book. Currently the 2001 statistics are accepted by the DoS and the parliament as the latest stats available. If the stats were flawed they wouldn't be accepted. I urge WP to maintain the status quo of DoS. And use the 2001 statistics until newer data is made available. When newer data contradicts older data; the newer data should be held true. even if the newer data is provisional we are not in a position to assess its validity. Distributor108 (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Suggested changes of data as follows in relation to Option 2 or 1

Buddhism: 76.7%
Hindu: 7.75%
Islam: 8.48%
Roman Catholic: 6.11%
Other Christian: 0.88%
Other: 0.04%

((12 986.6 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((1 312.9 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((1 435.9 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((1 035.7 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((150.2 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((8.4 / 16 929.7) * 100) = 100

Reference

http://www.statistics.gov.lk/abstract2010/chapters/Chap2/AB2-13.pdf

Source

Department of Census and Statistics

Jurisdiction of DoS

Purview

Legal authority for a census is required for fixing administrative responsibilities on public officers, placing legal obligation upon the public to give correct answers and for maintaining confidentiality of the individual information.

The DoS has taken steps to amend the Census Ordinance and the Cabinet of Ministers has given approval to do the amendments as required. The amendments were sent to the Legal Draftmans Department for drafting the new bill which will then be submitted to the Parliament.

Selected ordinances

Census Ordinance No. 5 of 1868 Reference: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=CenOrd_No5_1868&gp=CensusOrdinance&tpl=3
Census Ordinance No. 9 of 1900 Reference: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=CenOrd_No9_1900&gp=CensusOrdinance&tpl=3
Census (Amendment) Act, No.16 of 1981 Reference: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=CenAmeAct_No16_1981&gp=CensusOrdinance&tpl=3
Census (Amendment) Act, No. 55 of 2000 Reference: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=CenAmeAct_No55_2000&gp=CensusOrdinance&tpl=3
Census (Amendment) Act, No. 26 of 2011 Reference: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=CenOrd2011_E&gp=CensusOrdinance&tpl=3

Jurisdiction for new census, conducted in July 2011.

My No.: 14/CPH/GEZ/2011.

THE CENSUS ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 143)

Order under section 2

BY virtue of the powers vested in me by Section 2 of the Census Ordinance (chapter 143) I, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Minister of Finance and Planning, direct that a Census of Population and Housing of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka be taken in year Two Thousand and Eleven.

Reference:

http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=1655_8E&gp=CensusOrdinance&tpl=3

Is it compulsory to provide my information to the census enumerator?

Yes, The Census Ordinance provides legal authority to the Department of Census and Statistics to carry out the census while the same ordinance obligates every person to answer census questions to the best of his/her knowledge and ability. During census enumeration, a representative from each and every household is asked to answer the questions on the Census form. If you do not answer the questions, the Director General of Census and Statistics as the Census Superintendent has the power to direct you to provide the information. If you fail to provide such information this, you have a legal obligation to comply.

Reference: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=FAQ#Q3

Is my information going to be provided to the others?

No! The DoS under the Census Ordinance is legally bound to protect the confidentiality of the information collected on individuals/household at the census. Neither a government agency nor any other organization will be given data about an individual person or a household.

Reference: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=FAQ#Q4

Also see: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/databases/data%20dissemination/DataDissaPolicy_2007Oct26.pdf regarding Data Dissemination policy

Micro-data Dissemination policy of the Department of Census and Statistics (DCS)

Under the Statistical ordinance, micro data cannot be released with identifications for public use. Procedures are in place to ensure that information relating to any particular individual person, household or undertaking will be kept strictly confidential and will not be divulged to external parties. Information on individual or individual household/establishment will not be divulged or published in such a form that will facilitate the identification of any particular person or establishment as the data have been collected under the Census/Statistical ordinance, according to which the information at individual level cannot be divulged and such information is strictly confidential. Therefore, all direct identifiers will be removed (name, address, ID number, business name, reference number, telephone number etc.) before the release of the data file. The following rules apply to micro data released by the Department of Census and Statistics.

The micro-data pertaining to Censuses will not be released.

Micro-data of other sample surveys is released free of charge. Only the requests of

Government Institutions/Semi Government Institutions, Recognized Universities, Students engaged in higher studies and selected international agencies are entertained. However, the Data users are required to strictly adhere to the terms stipulated in the agreement form.

All the data requests should be made to Director General (DG) of the DCS as the

sole authority of releasing data is vested with the DG, DCS. DCS of Sri Lanka reserves sole right to approve or reject any data request made depending on the confidential nature of the data set and intended purpose of the study or analysis.

Requests for micro data should be made through the agreement form designed by

DCS for this purpose (Form D.R.1). The agreement form should be filled in triplicate and the study/project proposal should accompany the filled agreement form. If requests are made for the micro data of more than one survey, a separate agreement should be signed.

If the data request is from a student, a letter from the respective Department

Head/Dean/Supervisor, recommending the issue of data, should also be accompanied.

If the request is approved, only 25% of the data file is released at the first stage.

The release of the full data file is considered only after reviewing the draft report prepared on the basis of the 25% sample data file.

The released data file should be used only for the specific study/analysis

mentioned in the agreement form and shall not be used for any other purpose without the prior approval of the Director General of the DCS. Moreover, Copies of the micro-data file, obtained from the DCS, shall not be given to anyone else without the prior written approval of the Director General of the DCS.

The draft report of the Study/Analysis based on full data file should be submitted

to the DCS and the concurrence of the DG, DCS, should be obtained before publishing it. Once published, a copy of the final report should be submitted to the DCS.

Note:- Agreement form for releasing Micro data files (D.R.1 Form) can be obtained from the Head office of the Department of Census and Statistics, located at No. 15/12, Maitland Crescent, Colombo 07. Download Agreement from (D.R.I) for micro-data release: D.R.I Form For further details regarding the releasing of micro data, please contact: Mrs. Thiloka de Silva (Statistician) on 2682176, e-mail: data.requests@statistics.gov.lk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jurisdiction of Cambridge factfinder( Mr David) to conduct 1993 census

Please fill here - Thank you

Assessing validity and integrity of factfinder census.

Is it compulsory to answer david's questions?

Answer here please- Thank you. If answer is NO. Then i politely decline to answer his questions; therefore this census is invalid.

Is my information going to be provided to the others?

Answer here please- Thank you. If answer is Yes. Yo David can you tell me where my ex girlfriend lives!, shes hiding from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further note is these newer statistics hold much broader scope and accuracy. The currently used stats from the publication say Christianity is 8%; when the DoS didn't have 'Christianity' as an option, they combined Roman Catholic and Other Christian into one for the 1981 census. It should read 'Roman Catholic and other Christian' not 'Christianity'. Where as these newer statistics breaks down 'Roman Catholic' and 'Other Christian" into two separate categories and also includes an 'other' category. These newer results holds much broader scope another reason for its use. Distributor108 (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: Three neutrals, Mr. Stradivarius, Ravensfire, and myself, have given their opinions that the Cambridge Factfinder data is preferable. One editor, Distributor108, rejects that position. The discussion has reached a stalemate and is no longer productive, so I am closing it as unresolved. Any parties wishing further dispute resolution on this matter should take it to either the Mediation Cabal or, preferably, to a request for comments posted through the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Haven (TV series)

Haven (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

I am dealing with an editor who has done a lot of work on Haven (TV series) and Haven-related articles, and am encountering a lot of resistance to changes. I am not going to go so far as to suggest an OWNership issue, but it's swiftly moving in that direction.

To whit, the editor seeks to include just about every reference to the works of Stephen King alluded to in the series (which is a lot, but at least three editors thus far have considered it a load of trivia). I sought to bridge the gap and stop the revert-warring (of which I was admittedly a part) by converting the list to prose and trimming out all but the more prominent references. I even found two citable reference to X-Files, which the editor removed. Indeed, the editor went right up to the "electric fence" yesterday, and flat out drove over it today (eight reverts). The recent edits by the author seem like sour grapes, and I am running out of ideas on how to respond.
I need a little help, because I am starting to lose patience, and am trying very hard not to lose my patience.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

Ihutchesson (talk · contribs)
Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs)

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

Yes. (Clerk-ish note by Danger (talk))

N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Haven (TV series)}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I have sought to engage the user in both usertalk page dialog (regarding interpersonal frictions) as well as the more conventional article discussion page. I have also reworked the material to reflect the larger portion of what the other user wants up to the limits of concensus, but they insist on including every bit of information they have ever added to the article as far as references to Stephen King's works are concerned. Additionally, the user doesn't seem to understand NOT, OWN, RS or AGF to a degree consistent with communal editing. I'm at my wits' end; I was going to report the user's behavior at AN/I, and it was suggested that I seek to resolve the matter here first.

How do you think we can help?

Not sure you can, but if you cannot, its off to the AN/I page for more stringent measures that don't really involve a happy resolution for at least one of the users here.

Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haven (TV series) discussion

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

I see this dispute has made its way to AN3. Let's wait to hear the outcome of that discussion before deciding anything here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually thinking of the exact opposite idea: The AN3 report should be put aside to see where this heads. Blocking people who are trying to talk things out (such as they are supposed to do here at DRN) is a bad way to encourage consensus building and dialog; even if one technically violated WP:3RR, if it is clear that they are interested in talking going forward, it is better not to block and instead encourage discussion. --Jayron32 05:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Jayron here; I filed the AN3R report because i was getting fed up with the reverts and eight (reverts) - as they saying goes - is enough. If Ihutchesson puts forth a serious effort within the next day (that time frame so the AN3R doesn't go stale while the other user waits it out) to resovle the problem, I'm all for dropping the report. I don't want to have blocked a user willing to work within a group. I haven't the slightest problem with blocking anyone trying to OWN something against consensus. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that talking things out is better than handing out blocks if both sides are willing to participate. I suggested waiting for two reasons - this board isn't supposed to be used for disputes that have been brought up elsewhere, and also because it is hard to engage in reasoned discussion when there is a threat of a block hanging over your head. Let's put the AN3 discussion on hold if Ihutchesson indicates his willingness to participate here, so that we can have a proper discussion here without being distracted by it. I'll leave a message at AN3 to this effect as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need to comment here. The first edit by Jack Sebastian was the reduction of a section comprising a paragraph and a series of dot-pointed references to Stephen King works (see here) to the paragraph and one dot point (here). This edit was done ostensibly for lack of citations and the claim of original research. I returned much of the material, supplying relevant reliable sources, ie the company that provides the program.[7] The editor proceeded to revert to his edit three times.

He finally made a constructive edit,[11] which I took this as a positive step. I then removed a piece of trivia about X-Files being mentioned in the show, which the editor tried to justify by offering user-edited material as his sources. [12] [13]

I then responded with my own version in two steps reinserting what I considered the more useful of the excised material, ie leaving much of it out.[14][15] Yet above he makes this strange assertion: "the editor seeks to include just about every reference to the works of Stephen King alluded to in the series".

Jack Sebastian reverted to his last constructive edit three times instead of another constructive edit showing a willingness to compromise to find consensus.

As I have said to the editor, I have no personal interest in the Stephen King material: I don't find him a noteworthy writer. I didn't put much of the material there, merely attempted to give some coherence to it by adding the introduction and editing the material. However, the show is steeped in elements that draw on his work, so, if one is going to have a section that deals with it, it needs to be non-trivial.

Jack Sebastian seems to have taken ownership of the section and will not be guided by the protocols of WP:BRD. He has taken me to task twice for being ready to violate 3RR (see my talk page), while having made the first of each revert sequence.

In the last few days I have received more user talk from Jack Sebastian than I have from everyone else for the rest of the three years I've been editing. The last comment re 3RR came less than an hour before the editor decided he had to lodge this dispute. What I am dealing with here is hard to understand as the simple matter of an editing conflict.

How do you think we can help?

I also am not sure. I was looking for an administrator who might discuss the matter, when this dispute resolution was lodged. I feel that there is difficulty understanding the notion of compromise, especially in the editing process, ie a reversion to before the last constructive edit is not Wiki compromise in any sense.

Perhaps, a few objective opinions on the matter might help us both. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an objective opinion might be better served with the right information going in, Ian. On another page (where you essentially duplicated your post from ther to here), you asked why the matter had been brought to AN3R. I replied that the answer was obvious, but I am beginning to suspect that those policies and guidelines that the rest of us follow and more or less adhere to are largely unknown to you. I had assumed that because you have created over a dozen Haven- and Stephen King-based pages⁽¹⁾ that you were aware of them, but I guess I was wrong.

And yeah, I just pointed out how your claim to have "no personal interest in the King material" was at best misleading and at worst a flat-out lie designed to make you look like some innocent waif being put upon. As well, your comment about me having received more user talk than you, having edited for over three years is indeed misleading - you've logged less than 1650 edits in almost five years⁽²⁾. I've logged almost twice that in less than five months. Of course I am going to have more discussions, and you want to know why? It's because I talk to people I am editing with! I do not presume that it is easier to receive forgiveness than permission.

That is what makes me feel that there is an OWNership issue here, Ian. You don't want anyone changing or removing material that you added, and you aren't prepared to discuss anything less than complete inclusion of said material.

As for the content, I offered a compromise edit which would include the most obvious (read: explicit) references to works by Stephen King. I'd left out the rest because they were trivial. Two others editors agreed, and yet you kept speaking about some vast consensus that demanded every crufty detail be shoehorned into the article. Yet, they have been nowhere to be seen. It's only you, demanding that these bits (and nothing from a double sourced reference about the X-Files) be included. I think that is what got me reverting; the idea that you would not only fight to preserve nonsensical trivia, but would actively work to remove information that was well cited and interesting.

I am going to note this again here: I've seen the links you've supplied about the connections to the series. They all come from Syfy.com's website for the series. All use a type of pop-up video to point out the references, no matter how obscure. You are forgetting that just because something can be cited, that it belongs in the article. It does not. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think you are offering non-notable information as if it were the Sermon on the Mount. It offers undue weight as to the importance of this information and, coupled with your side explanations explaining the references, serves to render the information largely unusable by Wikipedia.

But I've already pointed this out to you several times, both on your talk page and in article discussion. I am not sure if you don't get it, are misinterpreting it, or are seeking a new standard of your own devising. I only know it isn't what we use here. You lack of willingness to admit that you handled this entire matter extremely badly makes me wonder if a dispute can be resolved. You think you are blameless in this entire matter, and no dispute can be resolved with such a person. Unless something comes along rather apologetic from you, I an, I am not holding out hope of this ending well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have some advice for both of you before we start: please keep your posts short. Very long posts do not make for productive discussion. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My second thought is that we need to determine the reliability of the sources being used. Having a look through the reliable sources noticeboard archives, eeggs.com was regarded as being basically a self-published source, so we can't use it. Some of TV.com's material is written by staff writers, so using that may be ok, but the material in question here is from a user-generated portion of the site, which we definitely cannot use. Syfy hasn't come up yet on the noticeboard, and I'm not sure if it would be permissible or not. I can't find anything on how they generate their material or their editorial process, but the videos in question do look like they are produced by staff, and I see that they also have a magazine which is a good sign that they have an editorial board which vets facts. I think I'll make a new post on the reliable sources noticeboard and see what the reaction is. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a new thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Syfy.com about this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my apologies. I missed the fact that Syfy are the producers of Haven, which was pointed out to me very nicely by the people at the reliable sources board. That means we can use it with the restrictions in WP:PRIMARY - namely, we can use it to cite straightforward facts, but not any interpretation of those facts. This brings us to what we should be including in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so we want to be comprehensive, but on the other hand, we want to avoid any lists of trivia, and we don't want to give any aspect of the show undue weight. This still gives us quite a bit of leeway in what we can include, and the exact final wording should be determined by consensus. I personally wouldn't mind a few more paragraphs on influences from other works, as long as it doesn't descend into a list of trivia. What are your thoughts on how the section should look? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that Syfy is a primary source, would you like to comment now on the version of the disputed material as I had here ("Stephen King in Haven")? Are there any problems in the edit when compared with the version found here ("References to other works")? Thanks. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is basically good material. The Stephen King material is not just trivia, as it is linked to two main points about the series - that it is based on The Colorado Kid, and that It is a favourite of the Haven producers. I would be careful, though, to make sure that the only things sourced to Syfy are facts that can be verified by the videos themselves. For example, I would change "The scene can be found in the opening chapter of the book" to "According to Syfy, the scene can be found in the opening chapter of the book".

I also see no reason that we can't change the section heading and add material about other shows, as long as we can find a reliable source that says they take references from other shows too, and as long as it doesn't become a trivia list. I think it is possible to have a couple of examples without it becoming trivia-like. If we can find the sources for this, I would say we could add both your and Jack Sebastian's material together - this is not necessarily a "one or the other" situation. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm actually a scholar so references are rather clear to me. (See the scholarly article I work on, Qumran.) I think I'd be adding "according to Syfy" for most things, if you'd make the change you suggest. Syfy actually says--among other things regarding the scene--, "the paper boat is a direct reference to the famous opening scene from Stephen King's IT".

I have no real objection to the Fox Mulder reference, though it is pure trivia. For me the issue was the imbalance of including that while leaving out more substantive materials. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions re Haven edit

Questions for Jack Sebastian:

Assuming you can find reliable sources for the material, why do you want to include the X-Files trivia? Should we also include the Star Trek reference to a tricorder as well in episode 201? If not, why not?
What is wrong with the King material that I inserted that shows that King influence is not merely trappings but at times integral to the plot?
What problem do you have with noting that the King book "It" is a popular source for material in the series, along with a few examples, and is acknowledged by Syfy?

The first issue involves whether the X-Files reference has any serious value to the show, while the other two deal with material that I consider useful for people to know about the series.

If we are left with a section that is about King's influence on the series and its writers and about 99% of the total references are to King, what is wrong with calling the section "Stephen King in Haven"? The title presently used is "References to other works" an invitation to trivia and not very indicative of the contents when it is mostly about Stephen King anyway except for an overlong piece of trivia concerning an oblique reference to Fox Mulder. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, been away in the real world, caring for a kid. I also felt the need to disengage for a bit, to fight off various impulses to decimate. In answer to your questions:

I think that using sourced references about subjects from outside the Stephen King milieu indicate that the program is more than a one-trick pony. There are references to other shows and such, and the ones we can note are those who pay homage to those other shows. Haven has been called (rightly so, imo) by several sources the inheritor of The X-Files, and noting a reference to that is not inappropriate. I will concede that the Eegg.com reference isn't that good, but the TV.com one is pretty rock solid. Lastly, passing references to things like tricorders (or bic lighters or beer - all of which appear in the series) are inherently inconsequential, as they have no impact on the background of the characters or in the development of the plot. That is the deciding factor to what goes and what stays, really.
The problem with including every little reference to King's body of work is threefold. Firstly, there is the tendency to connect the dots between the source material and the present material - a no-no. Secondly, there is the tendency to get top-heavy with the references, which clutter up the article. A further factor in favor of limiting the references is that they can easily be explored by interested readers by following the show link at the bottom of the article. That's sorta the way its been done forever. Thirdly, it is your interpretation that some of these sources are integral to the plot.
A cinematographic choice to use a kid chasing after a boat in the gutter before it goes down the drain which does not end in that kid being pulled into the drain by a murderous clown does not constitute an integral part of the episode or series. If a source explicitly states that these sorts of common set-ups and shots are used through out the series, then we can use it. Not before, and not anything less than an explicit source to that effect - this is key. We do not decide what is integral - a source does. To do so is both Original Research and Synthesis. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the TV.com source, it is an obviously user-generated source, as there are edit links beside the quotes. This makes it unusable as a source for us. I hope you will agree that using someone else's user-generated content to verify our user-generated content has an obvious logical flaw. More on your other points later. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impulses to decimate seem to be a problem you have evinced regarding this article. Your first removal of material I had to describe as a "destructive edit".

Opinions about connections to X-Files are irrelevant. How many times is X-Files referenced in the 22 episodes of Haven? Has more than 5 seconds of all episodes been spent on them? Even if you find a reliable source for the issue, it is still just plain "inherently inconsequential".
It is simply false to make the accusation that I want to include "every little reference to King's body of work". It in no way reflects my last constructive edit on the issue. When plots revolve around characters which embody ideas from King, such as someone with pyrokinesis or the ability to disappear from sight (these are just two more examples), then it is not difficult to conclude that they are integral to the plot and the references from Syfy confirm this. Claims of OR and SYN are baseless. The citations should make that clear.
You confuse issues when you refer to the drain scene as being claimed as integral to the plot. It was never claimed as such, but as emblematic of the writers' use of It, a use noted by Syfy.

If you have nothing else to offer, can my work be put back, please? -- IHutchesson ► 22:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I flatly disagree with you that a reference to X-Files would be inconsequential. I will, however grant that a good enough source has not popped up yet. It was a reference that wasn't from King's works, and so it is notable in and of itself. When someone citable notes that, its going back in, simple as that.
Fact: prior to my initial edit, your bullet-pointed section included over 13 references to works by Stephen King (which is pretty amazing for someone who claims no special interest in his material)¹. My collaborative edit sought to note only the most significant three references that were integral to the show. My statement at "Many other, less noticeable references occur in the form of street names and scenes reminiscent of either books by King or films cased upon said works" is more than enough of a nod to the rest of them that the reader can explore on their own by exploring the show link at the bottom of the article. Your last "useful" edit added 8 more references to the section bringing the total to 11, While this is two shy of what it was before, I think it fairly proves my point. You are seeking to re-add these same trivial references to the same section.

And lets look at some of these references you wish to include: you think that the episode using pyrokinesis is a reference to Firestarter. Could it not just as well be a reference to just about any episode of The Last Airbender or the aptly-named episode of the X-Files called Fire? Invisible assailants? Golly, for invisibility we have Misfits, and no less than three X-Files episodes: "Excelsis Dei", "Fearful Symmetry" and "Detour". X-Files had several "dark man" adversaries - one of which was actually made of dark matter! I could present as many examples as you can, but the thrust of my reasoning is simple: the crux of your argument (and I thank you for putting it into words) is "...then it is not difficult to conclude...". You cannot conclude or surmise of extrapolate anything. Period. And hiding behind the same source at Syfy is repetitive. You can use a few, but not all. It becomes redundant, esp. when there is a link to each one of your pet points.

It is one thing to sate that the series' creators like It. It is quite another to claim that it is "emblematic" of the writers' use in the series. That typification is one which you believe there to be. Using that reasoning, we should include the X-Files-related conversation because it is emblematic to refer to works outside of Haven. It isn't called a slippery slope for nothing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good example of your spirit of compromise: "When someone citable notes that, its going back in, simple as that." You don't listen to others. Your ideas are just as fixed as this. That's why you revert rather than enter into the editing dialogue to find consensus.

Much of what you say are false accusations. There is no point in continuing them (unless you insist).

If you want to include references to Airbender or Misfits or whatever, all you need do is provide reliable sources for the connections (as I have done) and defend your claims of relevance and significance. Syfy is happy to acknowledge Firestarter as the source for the character's ability. They should know.

You are arguing about two insertions I made to the rewrite you made of the section. They were 1) a sentence about the fact that King books supplied plot essential ideas and 2) a paragraph which talked of the fact that It is a favorite source of the series writers and producers. I don't seek to put all those bulleted points back into the text. Your aggression and exaggeration are misdirected. -- I.Hutchesson ► 08:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you make a personal attack, we're done here. It might be done anyway, because you appear far more interested in preserving your "ego" than improving the article. My spirit of compromise went out the window when you started edit-warring. I see absolutely no change in your behavior or even your perception of your behavior: Case in point (from AN3R):

The point is not who is right and wrong. The point is that edit warring is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Do you deny that you have been edit warring? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

When you start talking of denial you already seem to have an opinion. If edit warring is repeatedly overriding each other's contributions, I'd like to hear your view of the matter. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You do not see your behavior as even wrong. I find that boggling, and rather indicative of the sorts of users who contribute usefully for a bit and then flame out when they feel their brilliance isn't appreciated enough by the plebeian masses. Here is the short of it:

you do not appear to be interested in compromise;otherwise, you wouldn't be trying to re-add the same, trivial cruft over and over again,
you are either incapable of seeing that you are doing this, or are lying about doing the aforementioned; why else claim you aren't? Why claim you do not have an interest that it's provably clear that you have?
you came to DRN looking to point out how I'm a horrible little vandalizing monkey and you were 200% right all along; why else keep fighting at AN3R when it was politely suggested at least twice to get lost?

Considering these factors, I am not sure how DR is going to work. I've compromised enough; I'll wait for a better X-Files citation before re-adding the info to the article. I recognize that I should have been more thick-skinned when the other user reverted like doing so was worth a dollar, failing to use the talk page. I readily admit to allowing the other user to goad me along.
I still oppose the addition of tons of crufty information which does not improve the article and keeps it from being anywhere near GA quality. I still oppose dealing with people who have every appearance of not being entirely candid about their motives. And lastly, an apology for any petty slights the other user might have felt injured by will not be forthcoming; they have given umbrage far more than they have received, and it has been an increasingly heroic effort of will to not tell the user to kindly go off and perform a sexual impossibility with themselves. Without the other use drastically readdressing how they deal with me and the article, I'm afraid this DR isn't going to work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetoric aside, in the blue collapse bar below ("Stephen King editing data") I showed that I was not responsible for the King references themselves. When you (and ThuranX) removed nearly all of them ostensibly for lack of citations, I put most back with citations, as per the request. Somehow you translated that into my wanting King trivia. After you reverted that edit three times, you made a substantive edit, which allowed the editing process to move forward. I edited that and you again reverted three times, claiming I wanted to include "every little reference to King's body of work". In reality, beside removing the X-Files material my edit put two insertions into the article. "They were 1) a sentence about the fact that King books supplied plot essential ideas and 2) a paragraph which talked of the fact that It is a favorite source of the series writers and producers." Here is the edit:

Edit changes

(Red: insertion; Green: cut)

Several allusions to the written works of author Stephen King are made in the series regularly;^[] the series itself being based upon King's novella, "The Colorado Kid". On Syfy's Haven website, many of these references are pointed out as they occur in each episode. For example, Derry and the titular Haven are both fictional cities in Maine previously used in the author's stories.^[] Other references abound: one of the main characters receives a copy of a novel written by a character from King's novel, Misery,^[] while another character has just been released from Shawshank Prison.[29] In some cases the plot of an episode revolves around an idea from the work of King: a character who has visions on touching people, but is unable to act upon them;^[] or plants that start killing people.^[] Many other, less noticeable references occur in the form of street names, characters and scenes reminiscent of either books by King or films based upon said works.

Syfy notes, "It is a particular favorite Stephen King book for the Haven writers and producers".^[] For example, in "A Tale of Two Audreys", a little boy in a yellow rain slicker is seen outside the church chasing a newspaper boat that he has set in the stream in the gutter. He chases until it falls down into a stormdrain on Witcham Street. He then sticks his right arm down into the drain and screams. The scene can be found in the opening chapter of the book.^[] Also derived from It, episode "Fear and Loathing" revolves around a Troubled person who (unwillingly) takes the form of a person's worst fear, and in one instance appears as a clown, a visual allusion to Pennywise of the film version of It.^[]

As well, at least one reference has been made to the 1993-2002 FOX television series, The X-Files. One of the characters, an FBI agent, mentions a "spooky" agent who believed in UFO's and aliens. Another character states that he thought the guy was onto something, but that he went too far around the bend during the last few years, a reference to Fox Mulder, a lead character from that series.^[]

I've argued that the X-Files material is pure trivia that reflects a few seconds of the whole series, while the drain scene from It alone occupies more time than all the non-King allusions in the series combined. And that scene is mentioned because it reflects a stated and cited preference of the writers and producers of the show for the book. This is the context for the mention of the Pennywise appearance. Besides It, the only other material inserted regarded the cited fact that the plots of some episodes revolve around an idea from the work of King and I cite two, though there are more. And naturally Syfy is a primary source for knowledge on Haven, being responsible for the show.

The edit, which built on yours, shows that I don't want to include "every little reference to King's body of work". I have attempted to show the relevance of the material. I think you need to justify why you reverted my edit and continue to oppose it. It's not a matter of citations. It's not a matter of excessive King trivia. It's not a matter of OR or SYNTH, as the citations demonstrate. What exactly is wrong with the edit? -- I.Hutchesson ► 22:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, after you said, 'your claim to have "no personal interest in the King material" was at best misleading and at worst a flat-out lie', do you now accept that your statement is false?

Stephen King editing data

Most of those who added substantive material concerning Stephen King references:

27/07/11 99.88.187.25 [19]

==References to Stephen King's other works==

In the opening sequence, a newspaper article on "Reverend Flagg" is a reference to Randall Flagg, a recurring villan in The Dark Tower series by Stephen King.
The episode "Fear and Loathing" revolves around a Troubled person who can take the form of a person's worst fear, appears as a clown to Audrey Parker, directly referencing King's novel It.
In the episode, "Love Machine", machines start to come to life and kill people, a direct reference to King's short story, Trucks.

31/07/11 Elizabennet [20]

' and also to King's novel Christine.

In the episode "As You Were", Audrey Parker receives a copy of the novel Misery Unchained ("signed by the author just before that lady chopped off his foot"), a reference to King's novel Misery.

[21]

The episode "As You Were" contains several references to King's novel The Shining, starting with the storyline (a group of people are trapped in an abandoned, isolated hotel with a murderous, supernatural entity). The 1980 film version is referenced several times in the props and set, including a fire axe and a bright red tricycle.

02/08/11 Summerhaunt [22]

Randall Flagg is also the villain in Stephen King's novel "The Stand".

03/08/11 174.60.64.205 [23]

In the episode "The Hand You're Dealt" a Troubled person has the ability of Pyrokinesis. This is a reference to King's novel Firestarter.

05/08/11 174.60.64.205 [24]

In the episode "Ain't No Sunshine" the shadow that kills people is called the Dark Man. This is a reference to a poem written by King called The Dark Man.

19/08/11 Mfstock [25]

In the episode "The Hand You're Dealt" a character describes lobster monsters that came out of the water which is a reference to the "lobstrosities" in King's second book in the Dark Tower series.

I didn't start editing the material until 16/08/11 [26]. You have no good reason for asserting anything about my interest in Stephen King or lack thereof. I would appreciate a retraction. -- I.Hutchesson ► 05:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^--- The above put back in its correct location after the following refactoring. -- I.Hutchesson ► 00:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tactless, yes. False, absolutely not. You've created over a dozen articles on the series that are - by any reasonable assessment - dripping with references to King's works. Your actions shout much louder than I ever could about your involvement and personal in Haven and King-related material. If you are looking for an apology for calling a spade a spade, you will be a very long time waiting. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in your tactlessness here, though it is endemic of your behavior. I am interested in your false claims. You cite pages I have created and state here that "in a dozen articles on the series that are - by any reasonable assessment - dripping with references to King's works". This is another bogus claim. Please show your reasonable assessment of even one of these dozen pages listed in your link that are "dripping with references to King's works". Otherwise, retract that too. -- I.Hutchesson ► 08:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, Hell will start selling popsicles before that happens, Ian. If you are looking to massage your bruised ego, look elsewhere. Move on. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally, I'm trying to get you to develop your claim by asking for some substance, as it is seems to motivate your reaction to my last good edit. -- I.Hutchesson ► 22:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk's Warning: The instructions for this noticeboard say:

Discussions on this page should be focused on the issues brought here. Issues should be raised in a concise, calm, and civilized manner. It is not a new forum to list "beefs" about another editor. Off-topic or non-productive discussions can be closed after due warning, as the board is designed to diffuse disputes, not escalate them.

If the parties hope to receive assistance here they will maintain civility or the discussion will be closed as nonproductive. Discuss edits, not editors, only. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This discussion requires you both to be open to the other's point of view. If you feel that you can't post here without things getting personal, then I recommend taking a break for a while. Taking a break might put things in a different light and make things go much more smoothly when you come back. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's my point of view, sans the interplay from before. I think there are far too many references to Stephen King's works, which serves to clutter it up. We should note the most explicit ones, mention that there are numerous others within the series, which the interested user can explore through the External links. I did precisely that, trimming the number of external link - thirteen in total, and all from the same web source - to three. This would seem to be the most concise, best way to proceed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are still really at the dot points here. We have moved on to the next edits, your edits leading to this text and my subsequent edits which culminated in the form here, which you removed three times without actually entering into a discussion of the material and by that I mean you talked a lot but didn't exchange ideas at all. Would you please engage now with my comment above starting with the words "Rhetoric aside" and especially the two paragraphs after the first blue bar. Thank you. -- I.Hutchesson ► 06:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that we have had an awful lot of discussion but not got an awful lot done. I think a change of venue might be appropriate - would both of you be willing to undergo informal mediation? There is no obligation to undergo further mediation at all, but I think that in this case it might be useful. What do you think? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morrissey "image and politics" section

Morrissey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Morrissey's relationship to his fanbase is extremely important and central to his enduring appeal. While there is a large amount of information on the unfounded allegations of racism and his sexuality, as well as on 'feuds' within the industry and minutiae, very little content there relates to his relationship with his fans and his online fanbase, the intensity of which is unique to Morrissey. I have provided a good, well-sourced overview of Morrissey's relationship with his fans which is not disputed. Unfortunately the same individual (former IP) repeatedly deletes (censors) any mention of Morrissey's online fanbase, which is crucially important. Morrissey has written about his fansites on numrous occasions, mentioned them in interviews, thrown fansite owners out of concerts and worn t shirts urging his fans to "f***" a particular website. He may also be the victim of an internet hoax/parody, which he has written about three times in 3 or 4 months. When I include this very pertinent detail, former IP repeatedly deletes the content, citing 'poor references' (untrue - the references are good and many other items on 'Morrissey' have NO citation) - and 'trivial' again not true, as proven by morrissey's repeated actions drawing attention to his fansites and criticising them, it is far from trivial. He does not seek to compromise, but rather repeatedly deletes content, even when I repeatedly attempt to reduce the content, he simply deletes it. I also have concerns that this individual has a conflict of interests, being a moderator on one of the websites Morrissey has repeatedly criticised.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

FormerIP (talk · contribs)
Friendlyfan4 (talk · contribs)

Compromise should be sought first - as I did. This user has not compromised but instead has repeatedly deleted a salient addition.

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

Yes.

N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Morrissey, Image and Politics}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

This is my first step

How do you think we can help?

I am new to this site, please help. I am now informed after all this typing it must be discussed on the talk page, which I do not understand.

Friendlyfan4 (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morrissey, Image and Politics discussion

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

Hi Friendlyfan4, and thank you for your post. Before we get on to the details of the content that you added, I would like to ask about the conflict of interest of which you speak. While being involved with a fan site about Morrissey would not necessarily mean that an editor would have a conflict of interest with the Morrissey article on Wikipedia, the same would not be true for material about the fan site itself. This is quite a serious accusation and I think it would change the manner in which we would deal with this dispute. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any conflict of interest. I just had the page on my watchlist and noticed the addition of a very large amount of crufty material without reliable sources. --FormerIP (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Star of Bethlehem

Star of Bethlehem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

4 months ago I added references from the Book of Mormon to the Star of Bethlehem, consistent with material both inside the article ("Eastern Orthodoxy") and outside (John the Baptist; Tower of Babel). I wrote it in an admittedly awkward spot simply because I didn't know where it belonged on the page. Shortly afterward, the user Rbreen edited it out with the argument that no "serious" person would ever consider a reliable source. I undid that edit, and he rewrote the section into the bottom of the page. One month later, he came back and removed it completely.

During this time, I started a discussion on the talk page to which he replied when he completely removed the section for the last time. I replied to his reply, but the discussion has been dormant ever since.

After waiting a month, I went back and added it back under a more relevant section, but about a week later the user at 80.240.225.83 removed it. It is then that I started reviewing the resources available to dispute this. I started a discussion at the 80.240.225.83 talk page, but it has not been responded to in about two weeks, so that is why I am here now.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

I am unsure of Rbreen and 80.240.225.83 are the same person.

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

Yes.

N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Star of Bethlehem}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I have discussed it on the article talk page with Rbreen and on the user talk page for 80.240.225.83.

How do you think we can help?

I have no idea. I'm just exploring my options. This may not be the appropriate place to discuss this.

Danielwellsfloyd (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Star of Bethlehem discussion

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

Judging by the robtex results, and the fact that the IP hasn't edited again since then, I don't think it's worth taking action on the IP. On the content side, I'd like to know how you think the section fits into the article. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 01:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section entitled "Interpretations and explanations" describes what different groups of people believe about the Star of Bethlehem. What we learn from references in the Book of Mormon is that a group of people exists that believes the Star was not a local event or an afterthought created by the author of the Book of Matthew. The Book of Mormon retains the ambiguity of Matthew's account by simply stating that it was a "star" and shows that it was visible in the Western Hemisphere as well (or, more generally, that it was a sign given to the whole world, not just those in the East). The Book of Mormon is also the only text to claim an explicit prophecy about the Star: "And behold, there shall a new star arise, such an one as ye never have beheld; and this also shall be a sign unto you" (Helaman 14:5). It may be actually be more appropriate to include it in the "Fulfillment of prophecy" subsection. Danielwellsfloyd (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese language

Portuguese language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

User PedroPVZ constantly cleans my attempts to correct the beginning of the article, where it is said that Portuguese "is a Romance language that arose in Northern Portugal and spread, with the Reconquista, to Southern Portugal". In fact, Portuguese was born in Galicia, which included the present-day Northern Portugal: the southern part of Galicia, called "County of Portugal", become independent and then it spreaded the language to the south. See the articles "County of Portugal" and "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Portuguese_language#Galician-Portuguese_period". The arguments of user PedroPVZ to exclude any mention of Galicia are purely political and doesn't respect the historical data. I have a degree in Galician Philology and gave PedroPVZ some citations of famous linguists (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PedroPVZ), but he rejects any explanation. He wants Portuguese language to be born just in Northern Portugal and unfortunately it's impossibe go ten centuries back and change History. It's not the first time user PedroPVZ changes this item, as you can see in the history of the article.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

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

Yes.

N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Portuguese language}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I tried to talk with PedroPVZ.

How do you think we can help?

Please keep Wikipedia a serious place with contributions of specialists of each area.

Susomoinhos (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese language discussion

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

Hi Susomoinhos, and thank you for posting here! I think PedroPVZ probably reverted your addition because you didn't provide a reliable source for it. If you have a look at Wikipedia's policy of verifiability then you will see that there needs to be a reliable source for any claim which is contested or which is likely to be contested. The fact that your addition was removed doesn't necessarily have any bearing on its accuracy - it just reflects the fact that you added it without a source to back up your claim. If you can find a source that directly backs up what you said, then it is much more likely to make it into the article. Also, please understand that this is no judgement on the dispute, but I'm afraid we can't have a discussion here about your dispute until it has been discussed on Talk:Portuguese language. There really needs to be discussion on a talk page somewhere before we can take a dispute here. I suggest you start a new discussion on Talk:Portuguese language and post back here if the discussion stalls. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards