Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:40, 22 September 2011

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

Shortcuts

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
Rafida	In Progress	Albertatiran (t)	31 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	7 hours
Methylphenidate	Closed	Димитрий Улянов Иванов (t)	7 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 18 hours
AT&T Corporation	Closed	Emiya1980 (t)	1 days, 16 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	21 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	21 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 04:46, 14 May 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

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]

Zoellick bio closing comments

Closing as stale. Feel free to post back here if there are more problems. Currency1, I also agree with the editors here and at the BLP noticeboard that you should avoid editing the Robert Zoellick article or any other articles relating to the World Bank due to your conflict of interest. If you really wish to contribute to these articles, then the thing to do is to first get some more experience on some unrelated Wikipedia articles first; after you have got a feel for the culture of this site and got a better understanding of the neutral point of view and biographies of living persons policies, you may come back to World Bank-related articles and add suggested edits to the talk page only. It will still be out of bounds for you to edit the articles directly. If you have any questions, then please ask me on my talk page, and I will be happy to answer. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zoellick bio discussion (reopened)

I have reopened this thread due to a request from Currency1 on my talk page. New discussion should go in this section. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mediator from Mediation Cabal agreed that the sources justified Currency1's edits to the Zoellick bio:

"If the sources you had added in revision 439152551 are what you mean, then yes. At least two of these are government sources. I think this is enough to justify a reversion... Oddbodz (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)"Currency1 (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to start with, here's the text that I have been reviewing:

US Congress refused to approve a capital increase for the World Bank until Robert Zoellick cooperated with a Government Accountability Office inquiry into transparency at the World Bank requested by Senators Richard Lugar, Patrick Leahy and Evan Bayh. (The International Financial Institutions: A Call for Change A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate, March 10, 2010, at 24 [1][2][3])

and

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.(April 24, 2010 Statement of the Joint Ministerial Committee of the Boards of Governors of the Bank and the Fund on the Transfer of Real Resources to Developing Countries, [4])

My first thoughts are that most of these sources are primary sources, and so the restrictions outlined at WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY apply. Namely, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation"; and "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." The one reference used here that looks fairly reliable is the Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, which looks like it has a high standard of scholarship. However, this too, is a government source, and I think allowances must be made for the fact that the government is not a completely neutral party in this affair.

Regarding the first claim, I could not find any evidence in the report that Congress refused a capital increase; I only found that this was suggested as a course of action. It doesn't say that this course of action was actually taken. This might be because I missed it, though, as it's a big document - could you share the page number where this information is found? The second link was broken, so I'm not sure what it says. It would be good if you could find a working link for it, but again be wary of WP:PRIMARY. The third link to Kay Granger's page is, again, a primary source, and also doesn't specifically mention the World Bank. It is also not clear how all of this connects to Zoellick himself, rather than just the World Bank in general. He was the president of the bank during this time, to be sure. However, this is his biography, and so we should only include things that are attributed specifically to him.

About the second claim, it is sourced to the IMF website, which, again, is a primary source. Also, this source doesn't mention anything about a "gentlemen's agreement" or "187 countries". These things really need to be contained in the source for us to be able to use it to back up the claims in the article. (And that would go even if it was a secondary source, which it is not.) So, to sum up my position, I don't think we can justify adding this material to the article, unless there is something I missed in the report pdf. Currency1, I also want to reiterate my concerns with your conflict of interest with this article, and urge you to contribute to other areas of the encyclopaedia to get a feel for the kind of neutrality and sourcing that is expected in this project. I'm sorry that this has just added to the list of editors who disagree with your proposed additions, but I hope that you can understand. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haven (TV series)

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.

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.[5] The editor proceeded to revert to his edit three times.

He finally made a constructive edit,[9] 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. [10] [11]

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.[12][13] 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.^[] 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 [17]

==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 [18]

' 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.

[19]

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 [20]

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

03/08/11 174.60.64.205 [21]

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 [22]

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 [23]

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 [24]. 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]

Granted, I started out this process pretty pissed off. At this point, I am pretty much tired of dealing with the user. I'm personally a fan of mediation, but it only works when both people want to find a middle ground. I don;t see the other user looking for a middle ground.

I think that taking the matter to another page will only entrench the other user's opinions about his edits. At the risk of reopening a can of worms, three different editors feel the material was trivial, and only Ian didn't believe it was. To reiterate, prior to my compromise edit, there were 12 individual references to King's work. After my edit, there were three. Shortly thereafter (and up to Ian's last edit), that number had shot back up to 11 references. All of them taken from the same website's pop-up video. I've already pointed out that too much is too much. I think my edit is pretty solid in and of itself. I'll concede that if the info about IT being a favorite of the producers/writers/etc. could be cited better, I'd be far more comfortable having the info about specific visual references to that film. Without it, I think my edit covers it, and welcome any uninvolved editor to weigh the two. Actually, i think that's what is really needed here, not mediation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning of the dispute is of little concern to discussion of more recent edits. We are dealing with a later stage of the article. If you thought that the It material could have been improved on, then you should have attempted to provide an edit which improved the material, rather than simply reverting it. It is included below. How would you "fix" it?

Syfy notes, "It is a particular favorite Stephen King book for the Haven writers and producers".[1] 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.[1] 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.[2] [1] "Haven Stephen King References: A Tale of Two Audreys". Syfy. Retrieved 12 September 2011. [2] "Haven Stephen King References: Fear and Loathing". Syfy. Retrieved 12 September 2011.

You have said nothing about the sentence dealing with material on which plots revolve you reverted:

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;[1] or plants that start killing people.[2] [1] The plot of "The Hand You're Dealt", derived from The Dead Zone. "Haven Stephen King References: The Hand You're Dealt". Syfy. Retrieved 12 September 2011. [2] The plot of "Roots", inspired by "Weeds". "Haven Stephen King References: Roots". Syfy. Retrieved 12 September 2011.

The citations show both the relevance and the importance: King's influence on the writers is far from trivial and it is frequently acknowledged. Other than non-functional claims of OR and SYNTH (shown not to be relevant if one sees the citations), why is this sentence not worthy to be included, given that it was reverted three times? -- I.Hutchesson ► 04:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, Ian - find another source. You keep pushing the Syfy source. It's a one-trick pony, with no provenance as to where the information is coming from. It could be a marketing hack making it up, for all we know. If this information is so very vital to an understanding of the series, then surely other, reliable notable sources have said something about the producers' bonder for the series. All I am saying about that particular reference is: find it.

The character Troubles bearing similarities to characters in other King stories isn't important, unless you are saying that Johnny Smith (the psychometrist/clairavoyant from Dead Zone) was totally plagiarized for use in Haven. See where this is going? You are connecting the two using a pop-up video source who's source you cannot identify. If the video disappears, you are left holding the bag. If a reviewer notes the similarities, that shoukld easily be found.

In short, I think the pop-up video source from Syfy is crappy. We have no idea who the person is adding the notes. It could be some high school intern for all we know. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what you are supposed to be responding to. I have been trying to get a response from you many times about not only the It material, but also the plot significant matters. And Mr Stradivarius has clarified the value of Syfy as a reliable source, being the producers of the show.

As to the complaint about The Dead Zone, you still have not reviewed the sources, otherwise you would have read this comment about Vanessa's affliction: 'This ability references Johnny Smith from King's "The Dead Zone". Johnny, like Vanessa in this episode, becomes preoccupied with trying to prevent something he has seen.' Next time, check the sources rather than erring. So, you've tried citations, then trivia, then OR and SYNTH and now you are complaining about my use of a primary source. -- I.Hutchesson ► 07:47, 19 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.

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

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.

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]

I am a neutral mediator in this dispute (and am not, let me note, a member of the LDS Church or any similar or related church or belief). This article is about the Star of Bethlehem as both a supernatural and physical event and already includes discussions about how it is regarded in Eastern Orthodoxy and, perhaps more notably, astrology. The article is not, and should not be (at least not at this stage of development) limited to a western-orthodox-Christian view of the subject. Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view. With 14 million Mormons in the world (per the Mormons article here), the fact that their holy texts make reference to the star and do so from a historical perspective different than that in mainstream Christianity, is certainly significant enough to warrant a mention in the article. While a reference to a third party source would be preferable, a reference to those texts themselves is a sufficient primary source for the reference. I would note that in this version of the text for the article, the final sentence is inappropriate original research and must either be justified by a citation to a reliable source or be deleted. In terms of positioning and formatting of the text, my opinion is that it most logically fits in the article immediately after the "Eastern Orthodoxy" section and immediately before the "Historical fiction" section with a "3 equal sign" heading of "=== Mormonism ===". Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 19 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.

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]

The diachronic map in the article demonstrates the view in Susomoinhos's edit. PedroPVZ's last revert description, 'nonsense again. the article should be reviewed because of people with their "theories"' is not helpful. It would be good if Susomoinhos could supply a reliable source for the view that Portuguese is derived from Galician: it would help the quality of the material as vast sections of the article also need sourcing. -- I.Hutchesson ► 22:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there has been some discussion at User talk:Pignoof#Lingua portuguesa, but it looks like it is in Portuguese. Would anyone be willing to summarize the arguments being made? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. The discussion about the article has been between user PedroPVZ and me. I'll open a discussion in Talk:Portuguese language, as you have suggested.

Here are some reliable sources of the origins of Portuguese, which I wrote to user PedroPVZ on his talk page User talk:PedroPVZ:

-"Portuguese is the literary language of Portugal, its possessions and Brazil. It is based, originally, in the dialect of Galicia (northwest corner of the Peninsula), an area which has always remained connected to the Astur-Leonese crown (and, later, Castilian) and now belongs to the field of Spanish written language. The Galician border march in the south, along the mouth of the Douro, which in 1095 became independent as county (kingdom from 1139) of Portugal, had already taken in the mid XII century the reconquest of Portugal until the current southern border, and spread by these border territories the Galician dialect, which was used in the Middle Ages in the lyric also in the Castilian-speaking territory."

(LAUSBERG, Heinrich, Linguística românica, Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisboa, 1981). The translation is mine.

-"The Galician-Portuguese language began to be spoken in a region covering Galicia and northern Portugal."

(MIRA MATEUS, Helena, e outras, Gramática da língua portuguesa, Caminho, Lisboa, 2003. The translation is mine.

-"Portuguese, as we have already seen, developed as a concomitant of the southward movement of speakers of Galician, with which as a result it still has the closest of affinities." "Galician, from which Portuguese ultimately derives (...)"

(HARRIS, Martin e VINCENT, Nigel, The Romance Languages, Croom Helm, Beckenham, 1988)

Thanks again. Susomoinhos (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to draw your attention to the arguments of PedroPVZ for deleting my contribution (and similar contributions of other people). Here you are an excerpt of our discussion we had in Portuguese; he said:

"I know Galicia since I exist as a person. Although Galicia is now more Castilian than Galician and some have even seeming vain of it, you have to see Castilian as we see Portuguese standard, it's a different reality than the one that exists in Portugal, Brazil and even Africa! But what you're doing is a perversion, although the Galician and Portuguese variant of Vulgar LATIN in the Middle Ages were already variants of the same language, but that does not validate to be adding things about the Kingdom of Galicia in the article of the Portuguese language. Portugal doesn't owe its language to the Spanish Galicia, and that's what you are implying, and this is false and has another name! There is a relationship of direct dependence of the language between North and South (where they added something to the language) and Brazil and Africa (where additions were also made), but putting Galicia into this is ... A linguistic relationship with Galicia, whether or not it's the same language, does not matter. The only place Portugal owe (by dependence) its language to is Rome."

(I don't want to make any comment about his recommendations about the language we have to speak in Galicia according to his opinion). As you can see, his motives are not linguistic (that is, related to the external history of the language), but motivated by his personal political and cultural ideas and concepts. Susomoinhos (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting these sources. Going by these, it does indeed seem reasonable to say that the origins of Portuguese is in Galicia. I suggest re-adding your text into the article, citing these references, and also starting a new discussion on Talk:Portuguese language explaining why you have done so. If anybody wishes to remove your additions, then they will need to explain their reasons on the talk page, as Wikipedia uses consensus to decide article content, and merely reverting without discussion would count as edit warring. If discussion on the talk page stalls, then you are welcome to bring the dispute back here. (By the way, you might want to have a look at our easy guide to referencing to help you with citing those books.) Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could use this pdf for an online source: [25] from www.sociolinguistica.uvigo.es. (See page 42.) See also the first page of this scholarly pdf [26] Perhaps, these will function as reliable online sources: [27], [28], [29] (search for "Galician-Portuguese"). Even Wikibooks says that the languages share "a common base".

The problem in all this though is that the issue is not really a linguistic one: it is inherently political. The suggestion is the move of Galician away from Castilian (and Spain) and towards Portuguese. -- I.Hutchesson ► 00:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PedroPVZ's motivations may be "inherently political", or they may not. Whichever one it is, I would rather wait to hear his response before we judge him about them. (Sorry for the slightly bossy tone - it's nothing personal, I'm just trying to keep everyone on relatively friendly terms.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was no comment on PedroPVZ. The issue of language relations here is a political hot potato, so it's worthy background knowledge. -- I.Hutchesson ► 11:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer (Irish republican)

Volunteer (Irish republican) (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 removed this section from this article per WP:TOPIC. Domer48 reverted it citing that "The Volunteers were and became Republicans". I asked them for evidence for this on the articles talk page and they have failed to provide any.

I am vindicated in removing the section from the article as it fails WP:TOPIC and is irrelevant to the article. Domer48 has failed to answer my questions and my requests for evidence:

Did the Volunteers (of the 18th century) use the term "Volunteer" or "Vol." as a rank, as afterall that is what this article is on about.
That the Volunteers (of the 18th century) were republicans, what the article on this "rank" is also about.

Domer48's only response other than requesting sources to the contrary, was to edit the article to add in more examples of the Volunteers growing nationalistic ideas, and their desire for legislative independence for Ireland from England. Additions that don't say or substantiate that they were republicans. Thus Domer48 is violating WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR

His additions alone do not equate to Irish republicanism or even republicanism, especially as the Volunteers declared their loyalty to the British Crown at the very same convention that they declared their desire for legislative independence from England (this is sourced in the article). Home rule and nationalism do not equate to republicanism even if they do share many facets.

All his additions have done is increase the amount of irrelevant information in the article. If they were republicans, i'm sure it would be documented somewhere - so far no evidence at all.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

Mabuska (talk · contribs)
Domer48 (talk · contribs)

Domer48 simply refuses to engage in proper discussion of the content issue, rather stating over and over again "Sources please", when they are the one that has to provide sources to prove their relevance to the article. They also appear to be persuing synthesis and original research in the article itself to try to imply their viewpoint is correct.

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=Volunteer (Irish republican)}} --~~~~ 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 took the issue to the article's talk page. Domer48 has refused to answer the questions put forward to him so that he can prove his stance on the matter. Rather they have responded "Sources please". I also made a comment on their talk page however they removed it without a response. I then took it to AN/I where an editor suggested i take it here.

Update - Domer48 has since responded with poorly based and easily countered ad hominem statements.

How do you think we can help?

To judge whether:

The section is relevant to the article per WP:TOPIC, taking into account the article is on about a rank in Irish republicanism and the section in question contains nothing relevant to the topic of the article.
Domer48 has violated synthesis and original research with their additions.
That their behaviour constitues disruptive editing by preventing the improving of Wikipedia and their use of ad hominem to make up for their failure to provide evidence.

Mabuska ^(talk) 16:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer (Irish republican) discussion

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

Let me see if I have understood the issues here correctly. Domer48 added the "18th century Irish Volunteers" section to the article, and claims that these volunteers are directly related to the the subject of the article - the modern use of the term Volunteers, referring to the members of Irish republican paramilitary organisations. In his own words from the edit summary in this edit, "The Volunteers were and became Republicans". Mabuska contests this claim, with the arguments outlined above, and also says that there is no source in the section that links the 18th century use to the modern use. It seems that the accuracy of the section in general is not under dispute, merely the accuracy of the first sentence, which claims "The original use of the term 'Volunteer' in this context dates back to the 18th century Irish Volunteers" (my italics). Would you both agree that this an accurate summary of what you are not agreeing on? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stradivarius, your summary would be accurate, but that the arguements against it change so often [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38], in both context and substance it is impossible to tell. The Irish Volunteers were founded in responce to the American Revolution of 1776, who forced from the Government an Irish Parliament in 1882 a section of which inspired by the French revolution would later stage the 1798 rebellion. That they were called the Irish "Volunteers" can not be disputed. That Republicans trace their origions back to these Volunteers is however uncontested, although that was not always the case. It now appears that the whole section is being disputed, despite this failed attempt to have the use of the word "Irish" removed from their title. Now as the personal attacks persist ,[39][40][41][42][43], I can't see why an editor should be badgered into a responce. Here are a number of examples were article talk pages are being undermined because of this battleground mentality, [44][45][46][47][48][49].--Domer48_'fenian' 14:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, like Mr. Stradivarius, am a neutral mediator at this noticeboard. You say, "That Republicans trace their origins back to these Volunteers is however uncontested" but I can find no claims, much less sourced claims, supporting that position in the article. Am I just overlooking them? Without such claims, supported by reliable sources then the connection with the 18th Century Volunteers is just an improper speculation between the specialized use of the term in reference to IRA members and the word "Volunteers" in the name of that group. Could you please point out the claims and related sources which make that connection uncontested? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Off-topic: Domer48's ad hominem statements and arguements are disassembled here, here, and in my second last response here. What exactly is bringing up an [page move] that was to do with removing the need for disambiguation in the article title, and bringing up fully explained and vindicated responses in regards to Kingsmills, got to do with this issue Domer48?

On topic:Mr. Stradivarius and TransporterMan, you have both hit the nail on the head. All Domer48 has to do is provide evidence to back up his claims that the section meets the two points above that would make it relevant to the article. None has been given despite continued asking, and the fact i had to open an AN/I and this due to his unresponsiveness.

I would like to point out this edit by Domer48: Failing to provide any evidence at all, they tried an attempt to pretend that the only thing in the entire section that made it relevant to the article was sourced, whereby they swapped these two sentences around, and when i added a {{cn}} tag after the sentence, they reverted it pretending that it was now sourced.

All Domer48 has to do to resolve this issue is provide evidence that the Irish Volunteers of the 18th century meet the two points above (that they were republicans, and that they used Volunteer/Vol. as a rank) which would make them relevant to the article. The AN/I and this was created to try to get Domer48 to discuss and provide evidence - which they have failed to do despite many requests, only bringing up unrelated arguements that have nothing to do with the issue, i.e. that the Irish Volunteers were created in response to the American and French revolutions. So? No-one is contesting that, but its irrelevant to an article on an Irish republican rank bringing up and detailing the creation and aims of a non-republican organisation that just happens to include the term "Volunteer" in its name. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Domer48 has now finally provided a source in an attempt to back up their claims - a single source dated to 1842, and on that i don't have the good faith to believe they have kept the context of the source intact, most notably because of the "..." and the glaring grammatical issue in his source quote that highlights a possible deception on Domer48's behalf with regards to this source:

The origin of the Irish Volunteers, which, as an organized national military association, may be dated from 1777, ceased to exist as such in 1793…It is not inconsistent with truth, though it may be with the military glory of this institution of the Volunteers, to say that it combined in one great national phalanx the talent, the intolerance, the chivalry, the extravagance, the prodigality, the embarrassment, the republicanism, and patriotism, for one brief epoch, of all ranks and classes.

So what exactly is this actual quote saying if you look at it closely? The source is a book about the United Irishmen, an actual republican organisation. The entire exerpt provided by Domer48 reads as: the editor is stating what they say is consistent with truth in regards to the what United Irishmen spanned ideologically, whilst stating that it is inconsistent to state it for the Volunteers. Thus it is not stating the Volunteers contained republicanism. Nice try.

Also is the quote even in the source? Not according to searches of the 1846 edition of the book and the original 1842 edition (parent link being [50].

Why is this Domer48?

Nothing that contradicts this source and quote that i added to the article which Domer48 has failed to counter or prove wrong: Duffy, Sean (2005). A Concise History of Ireland. p. 133-134. ISBN 0717138100. "Quote: We know our duty to our Sovereign, and are loyal. We know our duty to ourselves, and are resolved to be free. We seek for our rights and no more than our rights". Loyal to their sovereign. How can republicans, especially Irish republicans be loyal to their sovereign, which was obviously the British Crown? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try Vol. 1 first edition, of which I have a copy! This discussion is over! Your personal attacks, have gone to far!--Domer48_'fenian' 22:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. Chill. There were NO personal attacks in Mabuska's question. He asked you for your reference, and was correct to do so. And you have provided at least a partial response. If you can provide the publication information, I think this entire argument can be laid to rest. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The volume is possibly irrelevant anyways as the source isn't needed to show that Domer48's quoted exerpt may not back up their claim entirely (i am accepting that it does have some merit towards it). Domer48 if you want your source to be taken as the answer to this issue (despite the fact its only one source from 1842) then answer the following questions about your exerpt from the source:

"It is not inconsistent with truth, though it may be with the military glory of this institution of the Volunteers, to say that it combined in one great national phalanx the talent, the intolerance, the chivalry, the extravagance, the prodigality, the embarrassment, the republicanism, and patriotism, for one brief epoch, of all ranks and classes."

The bit that is embolded - as far as i read it, it says that it may be inconsistent with truth in regards to the Volunteers - or is it saying its inconsistent with its military glory?
What exactly does it mean by "with the military glory of this institution of the Volunteers"? Is the entire exerpt talking specifically about a specific institution of the Volunteers as opposed to the entire organisation?
Is it on about the revival of the Irish Volunteers which occured in 1791?^[1] Especially seeing as after the war in America ended, the Volunteer movement rapidly declined other than in Ulster where it remained.^[1] Would that not make them a slightly different institution to that of the 1780s seeing as it was a revival of an organisation that had rapidly declined other than in several counties.
Is it on about a specific branch (an institution) of the Volunteer, such as the Belfast Volunteers which held different views to most other Volunteer branches?
What precedes this quote you provided? Does it elaborate on what "institution of the Volunteers" it is on about? It reads as if the preceeding text does indeed elaborate on it - why have you not provided that text?
If this institution of the Volunteers does refer to a specific part or branch or the revival of it fortunes, then how can this source be used to represent the entire organisation spanning a specific part of it? Would it not be more appropriate to add into the article the specific institution or incarnation of the Volunteers it is referring to? It would be deceptive not to.

After all the Irish Volunteers of the 18th century several years before their rapid decline did state quite clearly in 1782:

"We know our duty to our Sovereign, and are loyal" - ^[2]^[1].
"Resolved unanimously, That a claim of any body of men, other than the King, Lords and Commons of Ireland, to make laws to bind this kingdom, is unconstitutional, illegal, and a Grievance."^[1] - Would republcans say that the king can legally make laws for Ireland?

So this "institution" to me must be a specific branch of it as it definately wasn't the entire organisation for such a turn-around in its stance would surely be better documented than a single source from 1842.

But at least we are getting somewhere as we now have a source of sorts for contradicting these comments by the organisation itself. I took the liberty of amending the first sentence to be more accurate to what Domer48s source states, however even if his source turns out to be good enough - how is the rest of the section relevant to the article as it goes on about the history of an organisation that has its own article, which is already linked too so that the article can remain as WP:TOPIC as can be.

Mabuska ^(talk) 22:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Bardon, Jonathan (2005). A History of Ulster. p. 215-222. ISBN 085640764-X
^ Duffy, Sean (2005). A Concise History of Ireland. p. 133-134. ISBN 0717138100

Suggestion

In fact this is what i think the article could contain at this moment if we include Domer48's source put into proper context. Compare that to the article at present and you'll see it removes the Domer48's recently added bloatedness of irrelevant information in the article keeping it firmly on topic per WP:TOPIC.

Once Domer adds clarification as to what institution his source refers too, it can be added into the article and the clarification tag removed and the whole issue is done and dusted at long last!

All this for something for simple. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mabuska, and thanks for posting here again. I have a request for you - would you be willing to keep your comments down to the minimum length necessary, and to not alter them after you have posted them? It does make it harder to follow the conversation when there are long comments that keep being changed. Regarding the 1842 source - the issue here would appear to be whether the 18th century usage of Volunteer is connected to the modern usage, and so a source from this long ago is obviously inadequate. Any source will need to discuss the modern usage of Volunteer, and so it will need to have been written after the modern usage arose (The article says this happened in 1913). Also, newer sources are preferred to older sources, as subsequent historical research may have made the conclusions drawn in older sources outdated.

The bottom line is that if the 18th century Volunteers are included alongside the 20th century Volunteers with no indication in reliable sources that they are related, it would count as a synthesis, as it would imply that they are related when they may not be. I am not saying that they are definitely not related, but we do need evidence that they are before we can include information about the 18th century Volunteers in the article. (By the way, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the general term volunteer came into use around 1600 from Middle French, not the 18th century as the article now claims.) Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Powell Morgan

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.

Alfred Powell Morgan (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?

He was my grandfather. The article states that he had three sons. He actually had four, my father William 'Jack' Merritt Morgan being the first from a very short marriage.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

Merrilee Morgan (talk · contribs)
MerrileeMorgan (talk · contribs)

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

Not yet.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

How do you think we can help?

I would like to change the article to state that he had four sons. Who's Who in America lists my father as one of his sons. I'm assuming that would be sufficient verification. However, if you need more information I will be happy to provide what I have.

MerrileeMorgan (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Powell Morgan discussion

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Driving While Black

Driving While Black (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

There seems to be disagreement whether the article Driving While Black should be merged in to the article Racial Profiling or not. The article has been redirected more than once, and restored more than once, and there have been two separate discussions that haven't really gone anywhere.

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=Driving While Black}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

discussed on two talk pages. I have suggested to both sides that they may be misinterpreting Wikipedia policy, and that they may be editing too boldly in this case. For full disclosures' sake, I favor redirecting the article, per talk page reasons for merger or redirect.

How do you think we can help?

Would like additional input from more uninvolved editors on whether or not this article should be merged or redirected, based on sound interpretation od wikipedia policy.

Mmyers1976 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Driving While Black discussion

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

Perhaps I'm missing something, but there was a discussion back in march about merging the article into racial profiling. Being that there was no objection, the merge was conducted. Then after the merge/redirect was conducted an editor opposed the change multiple times and registered their opposition that nothing was merged. Having looked at both articles I agree that all the content from the Driving While Black article is covered in the Racial profiling article. Therefore the 2nd step in merging is to redirect. The reasonable period of objection is definiteley over. If you cannot be bothered to respond to a direct issue in over 5 months we shouldn't have to wait. Freechild, please consider reverting your un-redirection as your individual viewpoint does not disrupt the consensus established and that has remained for 5 months. If you disagree. Open a NEW discussion explaining why Driving While Black should be an article and not a redirect Hasteur (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree. My gut tells me Freechild won't revert his/her un-redirection so easily just based on your and my opinions, or at all, so I am wondering what the next step should be? Is there a target number of contributors weighing in, or a specific amount of time this discussion should be left open, before doing the redirect (assuming the consensus points towards doing so? Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I wasn't aware of the background discussion when reverting. I should've taken it into account when I came across the article via recent changes. -Cntras (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cntras, your revert occured back in March during the initial discussion, and you appear to have been doing it thinking an unknowing IP editor was trying destructively edit an article. I'll give this a little more time to see if Freechild wants to respond, but if not I think restoring to the previous consensus is not out of line. Hasteur (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is definitely a notable topic in here somewhere - the question is deciding exactly what that topic is. As I see it there are two possible topics for a "driving while black" article. The first is about the subject at hand: racial discrimination with respect to traffic searches. The second is about the term: the etymology and use of the phrase "driving while black". If the article is about the subject of racial discrimination then the title may be a problem, as it is not a neutral term, and given that not all racial profiling in traffic searches is directed against blacks, it does not precisely describe the article contents either. (See WP:TITLE for the relevant policy.) If the article is about the term "Driving While Black", then the title is obviously descriptive and appropriate (and still probably notable, although editors would have to take care that sources were about the actual etymology or usage of the term rather than just racial profiling in general).

The problem here seems to be that much of the article is about the term, but at the same time we do not have any other material on the subject, either at racial profiling or at another article. This has been creating tensions between editors wanting to merge and others not wanting to: I think some editors are seeing a biased title and an obvious merge candidate, and some editors are seeing an encyclopaedic article about a perfectly notable term. Rather than arguing about whether to merge or not, why don't we just leave the specific parts about the term in the article, and move all the rest to racial profiling? At the moment it looks like there is enough space at racial profiling for us to do that, but if the section grows too big in the future, we can always split it to a new article with a more neutral title (maybe something like racial profiling in traffic policing). Let me know what you all think of my assessment and my suggestions, and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Stradivarius, thank you for your well-considered input. Your suggestion sounds reasonable. My only concern is that if we move all the rest to racial profiling and leave the specific parts about the term in the article, then the Driving While Black article will be reduced to a short definition, which would make the article violate WP:NOT#DICT. I believe the term is notable enough to be discussed in the racial profiling article, but not notable enough to merit a standalone article, so could certainly add more to the racial profiling article, including a short discussion of the term "driving while black" and similar terms used to describe racial profiling. With a redirect for the term itself to that section, I would think that should be satisfactory, unless there is some sort of agenda for making sure the specific term "Driving While Black" has it's own article which I am unaware of. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madhyamaka

Madhyamaka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:Madhyamaka#Gorampa.2FGeluk Polemic replacement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

There appears to be a new user 'LhunGrub', who is unwilling to listen, discuss, or compromise about the content of the article. He is merely reverting any changes to the article.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

LhunGrub (talk · contribs)
20040302 (talk · contribs)

I am a longstanding but infrequent editor, and dispute resolution appears to be different every time some issue arises. This probably needs a 3rd party. It appears that LhunGrub doesn't know or understand WP:RS

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=Madhyamaka, Talk:Madhyamaka#Gorampa.2FGeluk_Polemic_replacement}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Opened up talks on the article and on his talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Provide a 3rd party.

20040302 (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madhyamaka discussion

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

User is using typical boomerang behavior. The reference is sourced. I went out of my way to type some of it out on the discussion page, but I am not going to type out several pages worth. LhunGrub (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem is that the user moved critical NONPARTISAN introductory Madhyamaka material out of the lead. Obviously this is due to the lack of understanding of Madhyamaka in general. LhunGrub (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I disagree with this. I consider LhunGrub's contribution to be tantamount to original research. He has use a reference which does not substantiate his claims in the article. Moreover, he is focussing on a rather specific objection that occurs within the Tibetan academic tradition of Madhamaka, which is not particularly meaningful regarding the scope of a school of philosophy which covers several continents, many cultures, and about 1,900 years. (20040302 (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

20040302 and LhunGrub, I think you may find it hard to get uninvolved editors to weigh in on your conflict, as your disagreement is over a fairly arcane subject, and difficult to wade through everything to see what you are talking about. 20040302, it might be helpful if you include diffs of the edits that LhunGrub has made which you disagree with. I can see why the "distillation sentence was problematic, while worded as if it was an objective statement of fact, it was obviously non-neutral and pro Madhyamaka. Lhungrub, I suggest you stop with the accusations of "boomerang behavior" both here and in your edit summaries. I don't know if that is something you made up, or if you are trying to invoke WP:boomerang but it doesn't seem very descriptive of 20040302's behavior, so you look a bit foolish throwing it out, and at any rate it is not civil, so just stop. I suggest take a break from this article for a little while. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he is engaging in WP:boomerang behaviour. For yet another example, right here he accuses me of original research when I have painstakenly quoted the source which says almost exactly what I have written. Actually I have quoted MULTIPLE sentences on the discussion page for this illiterate's benefit. He is the one who is inventing his own Madhyamaka theories on the discussion page i.e. original research. LhunGrub (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my opponent appears to be making my case for me. 20040302 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mmyers, it may be arcane to you, just as species of saltwater fish are arcane to me - but it's a pretty major (living) philosophical tradition, with a vast academic corpus. There are plenty of individuals who understand the basics. However, my concerns are far more to do with attitude and openness of spirit. Unsubstantiated claims, abuse, and aggressive reverts to incoherent text is a major reason why I contribute to WP less frequently than I used to. 20040302 (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are a funny guy. You destroy a functional article, deleting introductory material, and call the reverts "aggressive." BOOMERANG. LhunGrub (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been contributing to this article since April 2004. I like to think that at least some of it's merit is in light of my contributions, rather than in spite of them. I wish you would prefer to enter into considered discussion rather than resorting to aggressive snipes. 20040302 (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(fixed response) 20040302, I assure you I was not attempting to belittle your area of interest, merely pointing out that the issue over which you and LhunGrub are in disagreement isn't one that the average wikipedian will understand. I know considerably more than the average nonbuddhist about the fundamental beliefs and major divisions of Buddhism, but I found the issue the two of you were discussing hard to wade through. I wouldn't call it "the basics" that an average Wikipedian should understand. Based on your initial posts, I assumed you were bringing a content dispute here, but it now sounds more like you are more concerned with LhunGrub's behavior than the content, and in that case, perhaps starting a Wikiquette Alert discussion about his behavior might be called for. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When did you start this dispute resolution, like 5 SECONDS after I first replied to your discussion section (which was only created an hour before) on the talk page?? Regardless of the issues, your various actions are way off. LhunGrub (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk's Caution (and PS re complexity): 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.

Please maintain civility if you hope to obtain assistance here. Discuss edits, not editors, only. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) (as clerk) 13:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC) PS: I agree with Mmyers1976 regarding the complexity of this dispute. I'm afraid that you may not find a mediator here with the expertise needed to sort out the competing claims. (I know I couldn't figure it out.) If that turns out to be the case, you might consider asking for help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy or doing a request for comments using {{rfc|reli}} (or doing the RFC and dropping a note at the two projects asking for comments on the RFC). TM[reply]

I agree with TransporterMan's assessment. I had a look at the talk page and at the source in question, and I think anyone attempting to mediate here would need to be knowledgeable about Buddhism. I think you should leave a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism and see if you get any responses. We do have some good editors who are listed as being part of the wikiproject, so that seems like a good thing to try first. I think that it may also be possible to take this to informal mediation, but you would probably need to "translate" for the mediator and that would make the process take longer. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi Thompson

Lexi Thompson (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:WilliamJE undid a large chunk of content on this page. User:Crunch, who created most, but not all, of that content, reverted the change charging bad faith and asking that changes of this scope be brought to the Discussion page. User:WilliamJE refused to bring the issue to the Discussion page to try to bring in more editors and a brief edit war ensued with some discussion taking place at User talk:WilliamJE. The site as of this minute is in place with User:WilliamJE's last edit.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

WilliamJE (talk · contribs)
Crunch (talk · contribs) (me)

WilliamJE has previously been involved in other disputes involving golf pages, with many of the regular golf article editors. Some of this is documented on his Talk page. As a case in point, see this: Post from WilliamJE on my (Crunch's) Talk page addressing edits I have made in the past that he supposed had to fix and addressing me in an unprofessional and rude manner.

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

Not yet.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

1. Encouraged WillamJE to discuss the change on the article's Discussion page.

How do you think we can help?

What can we do to solve this problem? I think the change should be brought to the Discussion page so consensus can be reached. What can we do to facilitate that?

Crunch (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi Thompson discussion

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

I know that Crunch discussed the issue on WilliamJE's user page, but there is no discussion of the issue on Talk:Lexi Thompson. I know crunch said he encouraged WilliamJE to start a discussion, so why didn't Crunch just start a discussion along the lines of "I readded the information, and here is my reasoning why."? It seems like the best thing to do would be start a discussion there so the other editors on that article could weigh in on the issue. If you don't get enough responses that way, then take it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Golf, where editors who work on a lot of articles on pro golfers could say "yes, amateur losses should be listed that way" or "no, they shouldn't be listed that way". If your belief is found to be the consensus, and WilliamJE still keeps reverting, then some other action can be taken. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmyers is spot on about this. This board really needs to see that engagement (even if it's a talk page discussion that has been out there for 10 days) has been attempted first before we weigh in on the topic. Hasteur (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe this dispute could have been sorted out through more discussion on the article talk page. Looking at the discussion on WilliamJE's user page, however, it looks like it was a good move to open this up to third-party input. This dispute looks to be about whether the results from Lexi Thompson's professional record outside of her Tour membership are suitable for inclusion in the article. Crunch seems to be arguing that it is suitable, but WilliamJE seems to be arguing that these results are not of great consequence, and tantamount to trivia. I can't find any specific guideline on what kind of results to include in golf articles, so in the absence of this, I think filing a request for comments on the article talk page may be the best way forward here. You could also advertise the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf. I would note also that it is possible to collapse the table, if that would help the two of you reach a compromise about its inclusion. Let me know what you think about this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Bardon-1] Bardon, Jonathan (2005). A History of Ulster. p. 215-222. ISBN 085640764-X

[2] Duffy, Sean (2005). A Concise History of Ireland. p. 133-134. ISBN 0717138100

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 603: / Line 603: @@
 All this for something for simple. [[User:Mabuska|Mabuska]] <sup>[[User_talk:Mabuska|(talk)]]</sup> 00:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
+:Hi Mabuska, and thanks for posting here again. I have a request for you - would you be willing to keep your comments down to the minimum length necessary, and to not alter them after you have posted them? It does make it harder to follow the conversation when there are long comments that keep being changed. Regarding the 1842 source - the issue here would appear to be whether the 18th century usage of ''Volunteer'' is connected to the modern usage, and so a source from this long ago is obviously inadequate. Any source will need to discuss the modern usage of ''Volunteer'', and so it will need to have been written after the modern usage arose (The article says this happened in 1913). Also, newer sources are preferred to older sources, as subsequent historical research may have made the conclusions drawn in older sources outdated. <p>The bottom line is that if the 18th century Volunteers are included alongside the 20th century Volunteers with no indication in reliable sources that they are related, it would count as a [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]], as it would imply that they are related when they may not be. I am not saying that they are definitely not related, but we do need evidence that they are before we can include information about the 18th century Volunteers in the article. (By the way, according to the [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=volunteer&searchmode=none Online Etymology Dictionary], the general term ''volunteer'' came into use around 1600 from [[Middle French]], not the 18th century as the article now claims.) Regards — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♫]]</sup></b> 03:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)</p>
 == Alfred Powell Morgan ==

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