Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Rafida	In Progress	Albertatiran (t)	33 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours	Albertatiran (t)	19 hours
AT&T Corporation	Closed	Emiya1980 (t)	3 days, 1 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 7 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 7 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 19:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Tin box

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Horatio Snickers on 17:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Tin box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Horatio Snickers (talk · contribs)
• Andy Dingley (talk · contribs)
• Pkgx (talk · contribs)
• Dream Focus (talk · contribs)
• Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing disagreement over the difference between a tin box and a can. There is one point of view that a sealed can (for example, a can of baked beans which is opened by a tin opener) is different to a resealable box (eg: a metal tin that mints come in, with a hinged lid), The alternate view is that a tin box should be referred to as a can, and that essentially the two items are indistinguishable. The confusion is making my head spin. I think we need to get to the foot of this dispute! It is spiralling into mayhem!

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Long discussions on the talk page. Attempt to compromise. We have essentially been sucked into some kind of ontological fog.

How do you think we can help?

Help us work out the best way to proceed.

Summary of dispute by Andy Dingley

This is already beaten to death at Talk:Tin box. Pkgx seems to be out on a limb.

My position is in my last comment on that page: Are we a dictionary or an encyclopedia? True (as Pkgx wants to move the article) there are two words "box" and "can" and they are often overlapped. However, as an encyclopedia, we have two concepts (and two articles), box and can, that are very clearly defined and distinct. This is not a merge discussion, I see no call (even from Pkgx) that we should merge the two concepts. If we retain two concepts in two articles, then we should retain each concept clearly within those articles and not confuse them. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Pkgx

We are discussing metal containers here, specifically those with removable or resealable covers. Containers have a variety of common names at the household level: can, tin, pack, tin box, tin can or whatever we choose. We can all have opinions of how to describe them. Some editors, however, are using Wikipedia trying to formalize their personal views. In Wikipedia, we call this Original Research.

Using one of the many common names in the title is allowed; that is not the issue. The content of the article needs to follow Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia requires verifiability and insists on reliable sources for information in articles. Reliable sources are available here.

Two respected authoritative books on packaging are;

• Soroka (2002) Fundamentals of Packaging Technology, Institute of Packaging Professionals[1], ISBN 1-930268-25-4
• Yam (2009) “Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology”. Wiley [2], ISBN 978-0-470-08704-6

These two highly respected books have chapters on cans that indicate the preferred name of the containers in question to be “cans”.

Even Britanica online says: "Cans of tin-plated steel, both those that are permanently sealed and those with tops that can be lifted and replaced, are also used predominantly for food storage." These are all a variety of steel can.

Resolution of the question must be based on published reliable sources rather than a consensus of opinions. Pkgx (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by Dream Focus

• Its all about this edit [3] which removed the word box from the article, despite the article being called "tin box". The construction section of the article said "Some types of tin boxes have", tin box being the name of the article after all, and he changed it to "Some types of metal tins or cans". Other changes made in that edit are just as ridiculous. See talk page for more. A tin box is a totally different thing than a tin can, we having separate articles for a reason. Dream Focus 00:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Northamerica1000

Many sources refer to this type of container specifically as "tin box", "tin boxes" and "tins".

• "Belgian woman has collected 56,800 tin boxes over 2 decades". CNTV. August 3, 2013. Retrieved 11 October 2013.
• (1907). United States Congressional serial set. p. 228.
• Nelson, Rick (November 28, 2012). "The search for holiday cookie tins". Star Tribune. Retrieved 30 October 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Butter Cookies in Tins from Denmark. U.S. International Trade Commission. Volume 3092 of USITC publication. pp. I1-I12. 1998.
• Mccann, John (2005). Build the Perfect Survival Kit. Krause Publications. p. 107. ISBN 0873499670
• Beaded Boxes and Bowls. Kalmbach Publishing Company. 2006. pp. 6-7. ISBN 0890246297
• O'Reilly Media (2008). The Best of Instructables Volume I. O'Reilly Media, Inc. pp. 178-180. ISBN 0596519524
• Gupta, Amit; Jensen, Kelly (2011). Photojojo: Insanely Great Photo Projects and DIY Ideas. Random House LLC. p. 55. ISBN 0307586936

The sources support use of the term "tin box". Also, per WP:COMMONNAMES, commonly recognizable names should be used for the titles of Wikipedia articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Notes from coordinator

I've left a note on North's talk page asking them to post a brief opening statement and so a volunteer can open the discussion. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC) DRN volunteer coordinator

Tin box discussion

I wanted to thank Northamerica1000 for providing some sources to discuss. I’m not sure, however, that they resolve the questions.

• One is an old reference to some postal laws that mention ‘tin box’. It is very old indeed; the reference is from 1906, over a hundred years ago. This is nice history but is it relevant today?
• Most of the listed references are to ‘tins’. Of course, ‘tin’ is a common name for tin can and steel can. When a newspaper references ‘tin’, which does it mean? The answer could be both because ‘decorative tin cans’ are in fact ‘cans’.
• At least one on the list specifically states ‘tin box’. That is fine because we all agree that ‘tin box’ is one of the several common names for a ‘decorative tin can’.

I do not think that WP:COMMONNAMES is important here because we are not discussing the title of this article at this time.

It is difficult to understand what the other editors really want. It seems to be that some have an opinion that ‘tin boxes’ have nothing to do with ‘tin cans’. That is true for ‘tin trunks’ and ‘tin tool boxes’ but not for ‘decorative tin cans’. I have provided solid reliable sources that clearly state that ‘decorative tin cans’ are a variety of ‘tin can’. No evidence has countered this.

What is the argument? Pkgx (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: Please, wait for further discussion until a volunteer has agreed to take the case. (see notice below) Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The question seems to be - what, other than the Wiley Encyclopedia of Packaging, would you consider to be a reliable source? Horatio Snickers (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

• I'd be glad to help with this discussion. I will be available for most of tomorrow and the subsequent days this week, so feel free to commence discussion whenever. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you Theodore! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The Simpsons

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

Filed by Blurred Lines on 16:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Blurred Lines (talk · contribs)
• AmericanDad86 (talk · contribs)
• Grapesoda22 (talk · contribs)
• WikiAnthony (talk · contribs)

List of discussions during the dispute:

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2013 November 24#The Simpsons Adult Genre
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 160#Is this reliable?
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 160#Is this link reliable?

Dispute overview

There has been multiple discussions, about the genre, and the links that has been inserted originally by AmericanDad86, before that was WikiAnthony, and Grapesoda22, who added the genres without sources, in which cases there has been a problem since then.

DRN Coordinator's note: Dear Blurred Lines, you have cited three prior discussion above but only the middle link goes to a specific thread rather than an entire page. Can you fix the links so they are thread specific? or if that is not technically possible for some reason, then please give the names of the headers for each thread. Evidence of extensive prior discussion is a prerequisite for a DRN filing so this is important. Thank you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Blurred Lines 18:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Blurred Lines, Thanks for your efforts. What I need to see are both the links to the discussion pages and the titles of each discussion section so I can look at the discussions. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@Keithbob: I already have the links of the previous discussions above. Blurred Lines 23:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you made a special section above. So sorry I didn't see that. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Yes, but it's not working out for me, or anyone else. The lastest RFC discussion I had on the article's (The Simpsons) talk page, only one user responded to it, as of that user is (DarthBotto), who thinks that the links that AmericanDad86 provides have good context because he claims that they are scholarly links. Later, AmericanDad86 (who was involved in the dispute) made a survey stating that it supported DB's comment, in which I disagreed everything.

How do you think we can help?

I don't know, this is my second request since a few weeks ago, and was never answered (in which was speedy closed by a uninvolved user).

Summary of dispute by AmericanDad86

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

Summary of dispute by Grapesoda22

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

Summary of dispute by WikiAnthony

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

Notes from DRN coordinator

The filing party has a Semi-Retired banner on their talk and user pages. I've inquired as to whether they will have enough time to fully participate here. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The filing party seems very responsive and says they will have to time to fully participate. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC) DRN volunteer coordinator

24 hr closing notice--Unless we see some participation by the named parties in the next 24 hrs I'm going to close this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The Simpsons discussion

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

Macedonians (ethnic group)

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Jingiby on 06:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Macedonians (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jingiby (talk · contribs)
• Slovenski Volk (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the section describing the Macedonian identity is a statement during the Middle Ages, there was no distinct Macedonian identity, however the designation Macedonian referred to any person who lived in Macedonia. I tried to clarify with properly soursed sentence that Medieval, i.e. Byzantine Macedonia was an area outside the borders of the region known in antiquity and modern times with this name and it even disappeared after the Ottoman conquest in 14th century, restored only in the 19th century as geographical term. However another user fiercely prevents those objective circumstances to be described in the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I wrote on a talk page of an admin: Future Perfect at Sunrise.

How do you think we can help?

On the base of a common sense, compromise and provided reliable academic sources.

Summary of dispute by Slovenski Volk

Jingiby is a well-meaning editor, and i consider him a (cyber) friend. However, on this occasion he appears to be rather confused. There difference between my version of the discussion of "Identities" and his later additions are visible here [4]

Several errors are evident is in his additions

(1) he claims "The term was used rarely in a geographical or administrative aspect" Quoting J V A Fine here [5] which says nothing of the sort. So he has misrepresented the source.

(2) He then claims "This designation began circulating on the Balkans in Western-influenced cultural contexts since the 16th century again, however the idea of Macedonian identity arose outside the region during the 17th century, involving the local Slavic population hardly in the second half of the 19th century"

Aside from the poor English, it is out of context. The paragraph he has added it in is dealing with the medieval time-frame. He is jumping to a discussion on the modern period, surrounding issues of modern Romantic Nationalism etc which are already discussed subsequently in greater detail in an additional 3 chapters (!) His addition is thus redundant, and one is forced to conclude that it serves no purpose apart from ramming down his personal POV.

(3) He appears to be confused by the notion of Macedonia (region) and Macedonia (theme). The Macedonian region had been established since Phillip and Alexander annexed Pelanognia and Paeonia to Macedonia propper, and this remained so through Roman times and into Late Antiquity and the early medieval period; when Slavic tribes settled there. Whilst its expanse varied and was subject to change, a vague notion of "Macedonia" as a region always remained. Scholars of antiquity and Middle Ages have no confusion where Macedonia lies [6][7] - as they clearly discuss Macedonia in a wider, regional perspective, and when talking about the specific theme of Macedonia, they clearly distinguish. Eg Curta talks of "another Byzantine raid into Macedonia in 991. .. with a shift in centre of Power.. to Prespa" (pg 242). whilst the Companion the "bishop of Stobi, the capital City of Macedonia Secunda" (pg 559). When referring to the theme they illustrate clearly eg "Bulgarian troops raided the theme of Macedonia"(Curta pg 227). There is no "rarity", and the only confusion is with Jingiby. As an aside, and an explanation, Byzantine naming conventions were haphazard, tempered as they were on the chronolgy and extent of what land they actually controlled/ recovered. They could not call historic Macedonia the theme of Macedonia becuase they had simply not conquered it ! As a cross -example, the theme of Serbia was not actually in Serbia, but in what is now Montegenro. Serbia itself actually lay in the 'theme of Sirmium'. The theme of Bulgaria lay far to the east of original Bulgaria, and where Bulgaria is today. The Byzantine theme of Hellas did not correspond to ancient Greece, nor modern Greece , etc, etc

(4) In any case, Jingiby can confabulate ad nauseum about where he thinks Macedonia should lie, however, the reference is clear. "Most references to Macedonians in Byzantine texts are in (both) a geographical or administrative and not an ethnic sense".[8]. So it was used both as a general geographic identifier as well as the specific administrative theme. QED Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

List of sources for discussion

Since the topic seems to be complicated for the volunteers and no comments were posted, I would like to present a lot of specialized sources and corresponding links on their attention, aiming to to help them. I will avoid any personal comments on the topic.

• In the second century CE Claudius Ptolemy imagined Macedonia to be more or less where it is considered to be today, especially if one defines Macedonia as exclusivelly the contemporary Greek region. In other words, the northern regions around Skopje were not identified as Macedonian lands. However for reasons that are still unclear, over the next eleven centuries Macedonia's location “shifted” significantly—both in Byzantine and in Western European sources. Entangled Histories of the Balkans: Volume One, Roumen Daskalov, Tchavdar Marinov, BRILL, 2013, ISBN 900425076X, pp. 278-279.
• The migrations during the early Byzantine centuries also changed the meaning of the geographical term Macedonia, which seems to have moved to the east together with some of the non-Slavic population of the old Roman province. In the early 9th century an administrative unit (theme) of Makedonikon was established in what is now Thrace (split among Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey) with Adrianopleas its capital. It was the birthplace of Emperor Basil I (867–886), the founder of the so-called Macedonian dinasty in Byzantinum. Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810862956, p. Iii.
• By the beginning of the 9th century the theme of Macedonia, with its capital at Adrianople consisted not of Macedonian but of Thracian territories. During the Byzantine period the Macedonia proper corresponded to the themes of Thessalonica and Strymon. The Ottoman administration ignored the name of Macedonia. It was only revived during the Renaisance, when western schoolars rediscovered the ancient Greek geographical terminology. Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Macedon, 650 BC - 300 AD, Robin J. Fox, Robin Lane Fox, BRILL, 2011, ISBN 9004206507, p. 35.
• In antiquity and modern times, Adrianople belonged to Thrace, but all scholars agree that in Byzantine times Adrianople was the capital of the theme of Macedonia. Byzantine Macedonia: Identity Image and History, Roger Scott, John Burke, Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, Australian Catholic University, 2000, ISBN 1876503068, p. 67.
• By the Middle ages Macedonia's location had been forgotten and designated in areas mostly outside the ancient Macedonian kingdom, vanishing completely after the Ottoman conquest.Plundered Loyalties: World War II and the Civil War in Greek West Macedonia, Giannēs Koliopoulos, New York University Press, 1999, ISBN 0814747302, p. 1.
• The reason for specifying this period (late Ottoman rule) is that during the Middle Ages the geographical definition 'Macedonia' is somewhat vague; and with all but a few of the Byzantine writers the term comes to include the larger portion of Northern Thrace or what is today South Bulgaria, and often present day Thrace as well. History of Macedonia 1354-1833, Α. Ε. Vacalopoulos. Translated by Peter Megann, Institute for Balkan studies, Thessalonika, 1973, p. 3.
• Over a certain period they (Byzantine authors) called the inhabitants of the Adrianople area " Macedonians" because at that time the Adrianople area was included in the theme (administrative region) of Macedonia. The troops of this theme were also often called Macedonian troops. Documents and materials on the history of the Bulgarian people, Dimitar Kyosev et al. Publ. House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1969, Sofia, p. 6.
• When the barbarian invasions started in the fourth through seventh centuries AD in the Balkans, the Macedones and the other remnants of the Hellenes who lived in Macedonia were pushed to eastern Thrace, the area between Adrianople (presently the Turkish city of Edirne) and Constantinople. This area would be called theme of Macedonia by the Byzantines... whereas the modern territory of R. of Macedonia was included in the theme of Bulgaria after the destrution of Samuels Bulgarian Empire in 1018. Contested Ethnic Identity: The Case of Macedonian Immigrants in Toronto, 1900-1996, Chris Kostov, Peter Lang, 2010, ISBN 3034301960, p. 48.
• The ancient name 'Macedonia' disappeared during the period of Ottoman rule and was only restored in the nineteenth century originally as geographical term. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Nationalism, John Breuilly, Oxford University Press, 2013, ISBN 0199209197, p. 192.
• Under Turkish rule Macedonia vanished completely from administrative terminology and survived only as a in the Greek oral traditions. Plundered Loyalties: World War II and the Civil War in Greek West Macedonia, Giannēs Koliopoulos, New York University Press, 1999, ISBN 0814747302, p. 1.
• The region was not called "Macedonia" by the Ottomans, and the name "Macedonia" gained currency together with the ascendance of rival nationalism. Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian Question, Victor Roudometof, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002, ISBN 0275976483, p. 89.
• The first of these two groups was the Bulgaro-Macedonians, whose Slavic component the Bulgarian historian Zlatarski derives from the Antes. They were conquered in the late seventh century by the Turkic Bulgars. The Slavs eventually assimilated them, but the Bulgars’ name survived. It denoted this Slavic group from the 9th century through the rest of medieval into modern times... Thus the reader should ignore references to ethnic Macedonians in the Middle ages which appear in some modern works...Nevertheless, the absence of a national consciousness in the past is no grounds to reject the Macedonians as a nationality today. The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century, John Van Antwerp Fine, University of Michigan Press, 1991, ISBN 0472081497, pp. 36-37. Jingiby (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Macedonians (ethnic group) discussion

Since no other volunteer has stepped forward, I will open this case myself. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear User:Jingiby and User: Slovenski Volk, Thank you for your willingness to join a moderated discussion in an attempt to find compromise and agreement on an issue you have been struggling with on the article talk page. Please remember that the purpose of this forum is to discuss content only. Therefore please refrain from making any comments about each other and what one or the other has done in the past. I'd like to approach this issue with a fresh start and stay focused only on the content issues.

My sense from reading your statements above is that the core of the dispute lies in the use of the word Macedonia in the context of the article Macedonians (ethnic group). Part of the dispute is its usage in the Identities section as indicated by Slovenski's objection to this edit made by Jingiby. Rather than speak general terms, which tends to go round and round, I'd like to suggest that edit as a starting point for discussion. Is that OK with both of you?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you dear Keithbob. However, meanwhile we have found some kind of compromise on the article itself, with my friend Slovenski Volk. Thank you again. Jingiby (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Keithbob and Jingiby. Since it appears Jingiby and I are at odds with how exactly to interpret the cited relevant source (althugh in my humble opinion, the interpretation is clear and apparent); I ve decided to use the very quote of the scholar and leave it at that. Surely, this might avoid the need to continue the ad nauseum discussion on the talk page there. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

novocure

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by 1zeroate on 19:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Novocure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 1zeroate (talk · contribs) zad68 (talk · contribs) alexbrn (talk · contribs) MastCell (talk · contribs) Dispute overview zad68,alexbrn these two are following me around or we are bumping heads alot. They are insisting on removing most anything I put forth. Some of the citations they insist upon require credit cards to be read. They have a severe dislike/bias against novocure and modalities like it I can appreciate not giving undue weight to that which is unproven. However , Novocure is proven. I made a few edits on zad68 and then this novocure page I made was put up for articles of deletion. I feel this was done in retaliation. Mastcell was quick to support him after blanking my talk pages on the Royal Rife page speaking about novocure. This is a clicque. A club. A gang of individuals working their best to control the medical pages from a Cynical skeptic point of view. And thats fine till their bias targets individuals. I am sick and tired of being at the short end of the barrel. Can I get some assistence in resolving our disputes? Things like references that are free instead of ME having to buy access. Not having the majority of my edits targeted for rollback by these people on this page and other pages. The assumption that everything I do is in bad faith wears me down. And they recurit. Their is a salm somthing. He was on another delete page supporting a delete and asking for a merge. I opposed the merge because of the shady timing. Now he is on the novocure page supporting alexbrn and zad68 and asking for delete. And this is with that clique. Clique group editing is not gonna advance humanity for the best. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talking, comprimise. I am down for comprimise. I asked for a RfC with mast cell after blanking. but I have years of experience with Mastcell and his babysitting of the defunt royal rife smear page. That page is not a BIO. Biographys are about people. That Rife page is about his machine and how dangerous machines attributed to him are. It is that bias mentality that is following me and insisting that my edits be edited out. How do you think we can help? I have no clue. I am at my witts end. I try to come back on occasion... I was watching the Anthony Holland (composer) page from back in the day when He was the only Anthony Holland here. As soon as i added that bit about his work with frequency devices it did not take long to be put up for deletion by the clique. It would be nice if those of the clique would raise the bar, talk more before editing, assume good faith, double check ref links. Summary of dispute by zad68 The editor who started this DR, 1zeroate, has just been indef-blocked. It's unlikely anything further will happen with this DR. Zad68 20:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by alexbrn Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by MastCell Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. novocure discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deobandi

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 98.100.23.77 on 20:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Deobandi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved null (talk · contribs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorgeCustersSabre (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Statements backed by references to the links of extremism and terrorism to Deobandi movements have been systematically removed over the course of more than a year. Mention of such practices (not in line with neutrality and factual accuracy) began over a year ago in the talk section but received no comment. Additions today to references to this topic were summarily removed and labelled "silly" today. Given the global importance of such links in providing an objective view of Deobandi aspects, such references must be allowed in. As an alternative, the entire page should be deleted to prevent dissemination of a distorted view of this movement. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Undid the deletion, added comment in talk page. How do you think we can help? In short, allow references to links between Deobandi and terrorism and extremism, or delete the entire page. Given the dismissive and inaccurate description by GorgeCustersSabre accompanying his/her deletion of referenced statements, I see no reasonable possibility for acceptance of the references on the aspect of Deobandi extremism and terrorism connections without resolution by others. The chilling effect of GorgeCustersSabre's approach on this topic will be significant if tolerated. Summary of dispute by null Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorgeCustersSabre Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Deobandi discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Nichiren Shōshū#Image

– New discussion.

Filed by Daileyn on 20:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Nichiren Shōshū#Image (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Daileyn (talk · contribs)
• Catflap08 (talk · contribs)
• Kiruning (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The image posted on Nichiren Shoshu page is not a Nichiren Shoshu Gohonzon. The two editors who responded to me agreed this is true. It was originally posted right next to the section on DaiGohonzon. It is misleading and bad editing and visually deceptive. I uploaded an image of the temple where the DaiGohonzon resides which is a better instructional option. Catflap08 continues to delete the temple image and insert the incorrect gohonzon image with the caption "similar but not identical." Posting this incorrect image (see my "talk" statements about Turkish vs Italian lira analogy) is a false representation and harms the integrity of Wikipedia. It's just bad editing. It seems that there a political agenda at play here with Catflap08.

Thank you for any assistance you can provide to resolve this issue. Nancy Dailey

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I originally emailed EN-Copyvio, Robert Laculus, who removed the image but it was inserted again by several different people.

How do you think we can help?

I would hope that you can help to uphold the standards of practice for this article and not let it disintegrate into some political conversation. I am a big fan of Wikipedia and a donor. This experience has already shaken my confidence in it as a truth telling entity. I hope you will help get to the truth. Thank you.

Summary of dispute by Catflap08

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

Summary of dispute by Kiruning

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

Talk:Nichiren Shōshū#Image discussion

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

• Note that Catflap08 had started an ANI thread about 20 minutes before this DRN was submitted. Since nobody's responded to it, however, DRN is probably the better bet. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)